AIR PO LLU TIO N - Govinfo.gov

GOVERNMENT

Storage

74.I n 8/+A' i ilt el %i - bz-

A IR P O L L U T IO NH E A R IN G S

BEF ORE ASUBCOMMITTEE OF THECOMMITTEE ON

INTERS TAT E AND FOREIGN COMMERCE HOUSE OF REP RESEN TATIV ES

KSU

LIB

RA

RIE

S

=S EIG H TY -S EV EN TH CO NGRE SS SECOND SES SION

ON

H.R . 747A BIL L TO EX TE ND THE DU RA TION OF T H E FE DERAL AI R

PO LL UT IO N CONT RO L LAW , AND FO R OTHER PU RP OSE S

H.R . 1189A BIL L TO PR OVID E TH AT THE SE CR ET AR Y OF COMM ERCE SH AL L FU RN IS H W EATH ER RE PO RT S TO CE RT AIN AIR PO LL UT IO N

CONT RO L AG EN CI ES

H.R. 2948, H.R . 3577, H.R . 9352 BIL LS TO PR OVID E FO R PU BL IC HE ARI NGS ON AI R PO LL UT IO N PR OB LE MS OF MORE TH AN LOCAL SI GNIF IC ANCE UN DE R, AND EX TE ND T H E DU RA TION OF, TH E FE DERAL AIR PO LL UT IO N

CONT RO L LAW, AND FO R OTH ER PU RPO SE S

H.R . 3083A BIL L TO AM END T H E ACT OF JU LY 14, 195 5, RE LA TI NG TO AI R PO LL UT IO N CONTRO L, SO AS TO AU TH OR IZ E T H E APPR OPR IA TIO N OF SUCH SUMS AS MAY BE NE CE SSAR Y TO CAR RY OUT IT S PR OVI

SIO NS , W IT HOUT LI M IT ATI ON AS TO FIS CAL YE AR S

H.R . 9347A B IL L TO AM END T H E FE DERAL AI R PO LL UTI ON CONTRO L LAW TO PR OVID E FO R A MO RE E FF ECTIV E PR OG RA M OF AI R PO LL UT IO N

CO NT RO L, AND FO R OTHER PU RPO SE S

H.R. 10519, H.R . 10615, H.R. 11524BIL LS TO EX TE ND AND ST REN GTH EN T H E FE DERAL AI R PO LL U

TI ON CONTRO L PROG RA M

S. 455AN ACT TO PR OVID E FO R PU BL IC HE ARI NGS ON AI R PO LL UT IO N PR OB LE MS OF MORE TH AN LOCAL SI GNIF IC ANCE UN DE R, AND EX TE ND T H E DU RA TION OF, TH E FE DERAL AIR PO LL UT IO N CON

TR OL LAW, AND FO R OTH ER PU RP OSE S

JU NE 25, 1962—WASHING TON, D.C.

88470

NOVEM BER 27, 1961—BIR MIN GHA M, ALA.

P r in t e d f o r th e u s e o f th e C o m m it te e on I n t e r s t a t e a n d F o re ig n C o m m erc e

U.S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G OFF IC E WA SH INGT ON : 1962

SEP 1 0 19 62

>n.«.

I

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCEOREN HARRIS,

JOHN BE LL WI LLIAMS , MississippiArkansas, ChairmanJO HN B. BEN NET T, Michigan

n r . r'A

PETER F. MA CK, J r., IllinoisKEN NET H A. RO BE RT S, AlabamaMORGAN M. MOU LD ER , MissouriHA RL EY O. STA GGERS, West VirginiaWAL TE R ROGERS, TexasSAMU EL N. FR IE DEL , Mary landTO RB ER T II. MA CD ON AL D, MassachusettsGE OR GE M. RH OD ES, PennsylvaniaJOHN JARM AN , OklahomaLEO W. O’BR IEN, New YorkJOHN E. MOSS, CaliforniaJOHN D. DI NG EL L, MichiganJOE M. KILG OR E, TexasPAUL G. ROGERS, FloridaRO BE RT W. HE M PH IL L, South CarolinaDAN RO STENKO WS KI, IllinoisJAME S C. HE AL EY , New YorkHORACE R. KO RN EG AY , North Carolina

WI LLIAM L. SP RI NG ER , Illinois PA UL F. SC HE NC K, Ohio J. AR TH UR YO UN GE R, California HA RO LD R. CO LL IER , Illinois MIL TO N W. GL EN N, New Jersey SAMU EL L. DE VI NE , Ohio AbJCHER NE LS EN , Minnesota HA STING S KEI TH , Massachuset ts WILLA RD S. CU RT IN , Pennsylvania AB NE R W. SIBAL, Connecticut VE RN ON W. THOM SON, Wisconsin PETER H. DO MINICK, Colorado

W. E. W illiamson, Clerk Kenneth J. P ainte r, Assis tan t Clerk

Andrew Stevenson Kurt Borchardt

Profess ional Staf f

Sam G. SpalM artin W. Cunningham

S ubcom m it te e on H ea lt h and S a fe ty KEN NET H A. RO BE RT S, Alabama, Chairman

GE OR GE M. RH OD ES, Pennsylvania PA UL F. SC HE NC K, OhioLEO W. O’BR IE N, New York AN CH ER NE LS EN , Minn esotaPA UL G. RO GE RS, Flor ida PET ER H. DO MINICK, Colorado

n

C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— P a g e

Jun e 25, 1962, Washington, D.C------------------------------------------------ 1November 27, 1961, Birmingham, Ala--------------------------------- ------- 31

Text of—H.R. 747--------------------- 1H.R. 1189---------- 2H.R . 2948_____________________ 2H.R . 3 0 8 3 .. .______ 3H.R . 3577_______________________ 2H.R . 9347-------------- 3H.R . 9352--------------- 2H.R . 10519........... 5H.R . 10615_________________________________________________ 5H.R. 11524.. .---------- 5S. 455----------------------- 9

Report of—Agriculture Depar tment of------------------------------------------------------- 9Army, Depar tment of th e_______________________________________ 10Budget Bureau________________________________________________ 11Commerce, Secre tary of-------------------------------------------------------------- 11Comptroller General_________________________________________ 12Federal Aviat ion Agency--------------------------------------------------------- 14Hea lth, Educatio n, and Welfare, Depar tment of--------------------------- 14Inte rior , Depar tment o f________________________________________ 14Labor, Depar tme nt of---------------------------------------------------------------- 15

Sta tem ent of—Branscomb, Dr. Ben V., assistan t professor, Unive rsity of Alabama

School of Medicine_________________________________________ 61Corman, Hon. James C., a Representat ive in Congress from the Sta te

of California______________________________________________ 20Denison, Dr. George A., hea lth officer, Jefferson County Board of

He alt h___________________________________________________ 68Fogarty, Hon. John E., a Representat ive in Congress from the Sta te

of Rhode Isla nd___________________________________________ 21Gallalee, Dr. John M., chairm an, Advisory Committee on Air Pollu

tion, Jefferson County Board of He alth------------------------------------ 60Grimley, K. W., executive secre tary, Alabama Tubercu losis Associa

tion______________________________________________________ 75Halpern, Hon. Seymour, a Representat ive in Congress from the Sta te

of New York______________________________________________ 25Hudd leston , Hon. George, Jr., a Representative in Congress from th e

Sta te of A labama__________________________________________ 36McDonough, Hon. Gordon L., a Rep rese ntat ive in Congress from the

Sta te of Califo rnia_________________________________________ 22Prindle, Dr. R ichard A., Deputy Chief, Division of Air Pollution , U.S.

Public Health Service______________________________________ 36Reid, Ed E., execut ive direc tor, Alabama League of Municipa lities . _ 70Schueneman, Jean J., Chief of the Technical Assistance Branch, Divi

sion of Air Pollu tion, Public Health Service___________________ 42Spurlock, Mrs. Hugh, thi rd dist rict , Federated Women’s Clubs------- 75Sweeney, Dr. Dona ld B., chairman, Jefferson County Board of

H ea lth. ____ __________________ _____________________ _____ 68m

CONTENTSIV

Additional inform ation submitted to the committee—Gallalee, D r. John M., list submit ted of members of the adviso ry com- Pagemittee on air pollution_____________________________________ 61Hea lth, Education , and Welfare, es timate of addi tiona l cost, 1963-67,

attachm ent to letter to the Speaker, House of Rep resentatives___ 19Schueneman, Jean J., table re seasonal levels of suspended par ticu late ma tte r at certain selected cities in the national air sampling network_____________ _______ ______ ____ ___________________ 59

Sta tus of Federal air pollution contro l program__________________ 35Communications subm itted to the comm ittee—Anderson, Paul J., chairman, Southern California Air P ollution Coor

dina ting Council, telegram dated June 24, 1962________________ 24Bird, David W., presiden t, Natio nal Association of County Officials,telegram dated June 25, 1962_______________________________ 24Hea lth, Education , and Welfare, Speaker, House of Representa tives ,dated February 27, 1962____________________________________ 15Phillips, William J., air pollution chairman, Natio nal Association of

County Officials, telegram date d June 22, 1962_________________ 24Wagner, Hon. Robert F., mayor, city of New York, let ter d ated June20, 1962______________________________________________ 24

AIR POLLUTIONMOND AY , JU N E 25 , 19 62

H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s ,S ub co m m it te e on H ea lt h an d S afe ty of the

C om m it te e on I n terst a te an d F oreig n C om m er ce ,Washington, D.C.

The sub com mittee me t, pu rsua nt to call, a t 10:15 a.m., in room 1334, New Hou se Office Bui lding, Hon. Ke nneth A. Ro berts (cha irman of the sub com mit tee) presiding.

Mr. R o b er ts . The sub com mittee will please be in orde r.The sub com mittee is meetin g thi s mo rnin g to con tinu e hearings on

air pol lution control legislation. The Ch air has int rod uced two bills on the sub jec t. One of these, H.R . 30 83 , would make the pre sen t tem po rar y legis lation pe rm anen t and rem ove the $5 million ceiling on ann ual appro pri ations. The othe r bill, H.R . 10519, proposing an extensive revision of the pre sen t law, was int rod uced at the req uest of the Pub lic He al th Service. We also hav e a Senate bill, S. 455, before the sub com mit tee .

Several of our colleagues have int roduced bills on air pol lution and we are meeting this morning to hear tes tim ony from the autho rs of these bills and othe r Members of Congres s who are conc erned abou t thi s im po rta nt prob lem.

If there is no objection, copies of the var ious bills, tog eth er with agency rep ort s, will be inserted in the hearing reco rd at thi s point, along with a le tte r to the Spe ake r, from the Honorab le Abr aha m Ribicoff, Secre tary of the Dep ar tm en t of He alt h, Ed ucation , and Welfare, tra ns mitt ing the tex t of the bill I intr oduce d.

(The doc um ent s refe rred to are as follows:)[H.R. 747, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BI LL To ex tend the du ration of the Federal a ir p ollution control law, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 5 of the Act of July 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857(d)), is amended—

(1) by strik ing out “ (a)” afte r “Sec. 5 .” ,(2) by strik ing out “for each of the five fiscal years during the period

beginning July 1, 1955, and ending Jun e 30, 1960, not to exceed $5,000,000” in the first sentence and insert ing in lieu thereof “for each fiscal year such sum as may be necessary” ,

(3) by insert ing “for surveys and studies and” before “for resea rch” in clauses (1) and (2) of such first sentence, and

(4) by strik ing out “, and shall be allo tted by the Surgeon General in accordance with regula tions prescribed by the Secreta ry of Heal th, Education, and Welfare” in t he last sentence.

Sec. 2. Such Act is fu rther amended by adding a t the end thereof the following new sec tion:

“Sec. 8. It is hereby declared to be the in ten t of the Congress th at any Federal dep artment or agency having jurisd iction over any building, installa tion, or other proper ty shall, to the extent prac ticab le and consis tent with the inte rests of the

2 AIR POLLUTION

United States and within any available appropriat ions, cooperate with the Dep artm ent of Health, Education , and Welfare, and with any int ers tate agency or any Sta te or local government air pollution control agency in preventin g or controll ing the pollution of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any ma tter from or by such proper ty may cause or con tribu te to pollution of the air in such area.”

[H.R . 1189, 87th Cong., 2d sess.]

A BI LL To provide that the Secretary of Commerce shall furnish weather reports to certain air pollution control agencies

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at the last sentence of t he first section of t he Act ent itled “An Act to provide research and techn ical assistance rela ting to air pollution control” , approved July 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857), is amended by strik ing o ut the l ast sentence and inserting in lieu thereo f the following: “To this end, the Secretary of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service (under the supervision and direction of t he Secre tary of Health, Education , and Welfare), and the Secre tary of Commerce, shall have the author ity relating to air pollution control vested in them by this Act.”

Sec. 2. Such Act of J uly 14, 1955, is further amended by redesignating sections 6 and 7 as sections 7 and 8, respectively, and by insert ing immediately afte r section 5 the following new section:

“Sec. 6. Upon the request of any Sta te or local governmen t air pollution control agency, the Secretary of Commerce shall—

“ (1) make such observations, measurements, invest igations, and studies of atmospheric phenomena, and establ ish such meteorological offices and stations, as are necessary or best suited for ascerta ining, in advance, information concerning th e effect of probable weather conditions on air pollution; and

“ (2) furnish such reports, forecasts, warnings, and advice, with respect to the effect of probable weather conditions on air pollution, in such manner and with such frequency as will best enable such Sta te or local air pollution control agency to contro l air pollution and provide assistance for techn ical research in devising and developing methods of aba ting such pollution.”

[H.R . 2948, H.R . 3577, H.R. 9352, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BIL L To provide for pub lic hearings on air pollu tion problem s of more tha n local significance under, and extend the duration of, the Federal air po llution control law, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 3 of the Act of July 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857b), is amended by striking out “, upon request of any Sta te or local government air pollution control agency ,” , by strik ing out “such Sta te or local government air pollution control agency” and insert ing in lieu thereof “any State or local government air pollution control agency” , and by inserting before the period at the end thereof “, but only if requested to do so by such Sta te or local government air pollu tion control agency or if, in his judgment, such problem may affect or be of concern to communi ties in various par ts of the Nat ion or may affect any community or communi ties in a Sta te othe r than th at in which the matter causing or contr ibuting to the pollution originated” .

Sec. 2. Such Act is further amended by redesignating sections 6, 7, and 8 as sections 7, 8, and 9, respectively , and insert ing afte r sect ion 5 the following new section:

“Sec. 6. (a) Whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys , or studies, he believes it appropr iate, or whenever requested by any Sta te or local governm ent air pollution control agency, the Surgeon General may call a public hearing on any problem of air pollution which may affect or be of concern to communit ies in various par ts of the Nation or which may affect any community or communities in any Sta te other tha n the Sta te in which the ma tte r causing or contribu ting to th e pollution originates. Any such hearing shall be co nducted before a board composed of not less tha n five members appo inted by the Secre tary of Health , Education , and Welfare, who shall be representa tive of the public indust ry which is affected by or concerned with the problem, persons who are expert or have special knowledge in the m atter, inte rested Federa l agencies, and interes ted State or local government air pollu tion contro l agencies.

AIR POLLUTION 3

“ (b) Subject to regulat ions of the Surgeon General, an opp ortu nity to be heard a t such hearing shall be accorded to all interested persons.

“ (c) After consideration of the information presented at the hearing and such other information as is available to it, the board shall make a report and recommendations to the Surgeon General on such matters as the existence, cause, and effect of the air pollution on which the hearing was held, progress toward its aba tement, and othe r rela ted matter s. Such report and recommendations, toge ther with the comments and recommenda tions, if any, of the Surgeon General with respect thereto, shall be available to the comm unity or communi ties, Government agencies, and industries concerned and, to the extent the Surgeon General deems appropria te, to the public, bu t shall not be binding on any person, agency, or organizat ion.”

Sec. 3. Section 5 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857d) is amended by strik ing out “nine fiscal years beginning July 1, 1955, and ending June 30, 1964, not to exceed $5,000,000” in the first sentence, and in serting in lieu thereof “eleven fiscal years beginning July 1, 1955, an d ending June 30, 1966, not to exceed $5,000,000” .

[H.R. 3083, 87th Cong., 1st sess.]A BILL To amend the A ct of Jul y 14,1955, rela ting to air pollut ion control, so as to authorize the appropria

tion of such sums as may be necessa ry to carry o ut its provisions, withou t limi tation as to fiscal years

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 5 of the Act of July 14, 1955, en titled “An Act to provide research and technica l assistance relat ing to air pollution control” (42 U.S.C. 1857d), is amended by st riking out “for each of the nine fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1955, and ending June 30, 1964, not to exceed $5,000,000” in the first sentence and inser ting in lieu thereof “such sums as may be necessary” .

[H.R. 9347, 87th Cong., 1st sess.lA BILL To am end the Federal air pol lution control law to provide for a more effective program of air pollu

tion control, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 3 of the Act enti tled “An Act to provide research and technical assistance rela ting to air pollution control ,” approved Ju ly 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857b), is amended to read as follows:

“Sec. 3. (a) The Surgeon General may conduct invest igations and research and make surveys (including holding public hearings) concerning any problem of air pollution confronting a Sta te or local government air pollution contro l agency or of concern to the Nation or any area thereof with a view to recommending a solution to such problem.

“ (b) (1) The Surgeon General shall, after conduc ting such research as may be necessary, dete rmine standa rds as to the amount of unbu rned hydrocarbons, noxious gases and other pollutan ts, which are safe from the s tandpo int of human health , for discharge into the atmosphere.

“ (2) After the dete rmin ation of such standa rds the Surgeon General shall use his autho rity under the provisions of this Act to the extent necessary to develop effective and prac tica l devices to contro l the discharge of p ollu tant s into the air within the limits of such standards.

“ (3) The Surgeon General shall report annually to the President and the Congress his progress in carrying out the provisions of thi s subsectio n.”

Sec. 2. Section 5 of such Act of Ju ly 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857d), is amended by striking out “for each of the nine fiscal years during the period beginning July 1, 1955, and ending June 30, 1964, not to exceed $5,000,000” and inser ting in lieu thereof “for each fiscal yea r such sum as m ay be necessary” .

Sec. 3. Such Act of July 14, 1955, is further amended by inser ting at the end thereof a new section as follows:

“Sec. 9. (a) The pollu tion of the air in any State or States which endangers the hea lth or welfare of any persons, shall be subjec t to abateme nt as provided in this section.

“ (b) Cons isten t with the policy decla ration of th is Act, State, inters tate, and local action to aba te pollu tion of the air shall be encouraged and shall not be displaced b y Federal enforcement act ion except as otherwise provided by or purs uan t to a final order issued in accordance with subsection (e) of thi s section or a cour t order under subsection (g) of this section.

4 AIR POLLUTION

“ (c) (1) Whenever requested by either th e Governor of any State, or a Sta te air pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the Governor or of the Sta te air pollution control agency for the Sta te in which the munic ipality is situated ) the governing body of any municipality, the Surgeon General shall give formal notificat ion of any air pollution to the Sta te air pollution control agency and inters tate agency, if any, of the S tate or States where any discharge or d ischarges causing or contributing to such air pollution originate and shall call prom ptly a conference of the Sta te air pollution control agency and inte rstate agency, if any, of the Sta te or States where the discharge or discharges causing or contrib uting to such pollution originate and of the Sta te or States , which may be adversely affected by such pollution. Whenever the Surgeon General, on the basis of repor ts, surveys , or studies, has reason to believe th at air pollution is endangering the heal th or welfare of persons in a State other than th at in which the discharge origina tes is occurring, he may call such a conference on his own initia tive.

“ (2) The agencies called to att end such conference may bring such persons as they desire to th e conference. Not less tha n three weeks’ prior notice of the conference d ate shall be given to such agencies.

“ (3) Following this conference, th e Surgeon General shall prepare and forward to all the air pollution control agencies atte nding the conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occurrence of po llution of th e air subject to aba tement under this sect ion; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward a batement of the pollut ion; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being encountered in abat ing the pollution.

“ (d) If the Surgeon General believes, upon the conclusion of the conference or thereafte r, th at effective progress toward aba tem ent of such pollution is not being made and th at the heal th or welfare of any person is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropr iate Sta te air pollution control agency th at it tak e necessary remedia l action. The Surgeon General shall allow a t leas t six months from the date he makes such recommendat ions for the takin g of such recommended action.

“ (e) If at the conclusion of such six-month period such remedial action is not taken or action which in the judgmen t of th e Surgeon General is reasonably calcula ted to secure abatement of such pollution is not taken, the Secre tary of Heal th, Education , and Welfare shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge o r discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before a hearing board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary. Each Sta te in which any discharge causing or contributin g to such pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by such pollution shall be given an opportu nity to select one member of the hearing board and at least one member shall be a represen tative of the Departm ent of Commerce appointed by the Secreta ry of Commerce, and not less than a majority of th e hearing board shall be persons other tha n officers or employees of the Departm ent of Heal th, Education , and Welfare. At least three weeks’ prior notice of such hear ing shall be given to the Sta te air pollution control agencies and inters tate agencies, if any, called to att end the aforesaid hearing and to the alleged pollute r or polluters. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence any person alleged to be discharging m atter cont ributing to the pollution, abatement of which is sought, may be joined as a par ty to such hearing if th e fact of such alleged pollution does n ot become known until after such notice has been given. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the hearing board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward aba tement thereof is being made. If the hearing board finds such pollu tion is occurring and effective progress toward aba tem ent is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Secretary of Hea lth, Education , and Welfare concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure aba tement of such pollution. Such findings and recomm endations shall be the findings and recommendations of the Secretary except to the extent, on the basis of the evidence a t such hearing, he believes additional or differen t findings or recommendat ions are warranted. The Secretary shall send his findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging any ma tte r causing or co ntributing to such pollution, together with an order specifying a reasonable time bu t not less tha n six months from date of issuance of such order to secure aba tem ent of such pollution in accordance with such findings and recommendat ions. Such order shall become final on the sixtieth day afte r the date of its issuance. The Secretary shall also send a copy of such findings and recommendat ions and such order to the air pollution control agencies and inte rsta te agencies, if any , atte nding the hearings.

AIR POLLUTION O

“ (f) An appeal may be taken from any such order of the Secretary of Hea lth, Education , and Welfare by any person who has been made subject to such order to the United States court of appea ls for the circuit in which any discharge or discharges causing or con tribu ting to the pollution subject to aba tement by such order originates by filing with such cour t a notice of appeal within sixty days from the date of issuance of the order. The jurisd iction of the cour t shall att ach upon the filing of such notice. A copy of such notice shall forthwith be transm itted by the clerk of the court to the Secreta ry or any officer designa ted by him for tha t purpose and to any o ther person who received a copy of the Secretary’s order. The Secretary shall th ereupon file in the court the record of the proceedings before the hearing board as provided in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code, toge ther with his findings of fact and recommendations. Such findings of the Secretary, if suppo rted by sub stan tial evidence when considered on the record as a whole, shall be conclusive, bu t the court for good cause shown may remand the case to the Secretary for the taking of addit ional evidence in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the cour t may deem proper. The Secre tary may thereupon make or cause to be made new or modified f indings of fact and recommendations, and he shall file with the court the record of such fur the r proceedings, the new or modified findings and recommendations, and his recommendat ions, if any, for the setting aside or modification of his original order. Such new or modified findings shall likewise be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence when considered on t he record as a whole.

“ (g) Upon the basis of the record of the proceedings filed with it, the court shall have jurisdiction to ente r an order affirming or setting aside, in whole or in par t, the order of the Secretary of Hea lth, Educatio n, and Welfare. The judgment of the cour t shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Cour t of the United States upon certio rari or certifi cation as provided in section 1254 of t itle 28 of the United States Code.

“ (h) The United States dist rict courts shall have jurisd iction of any civil action brough t by the Attorney General at the request of the Secreta ry of Heal th, Education , and Welfare to enforce any order issued under this section by the Secretary of Health, Education , and Welfare, or by a United States cour t of appeals.

“ (i) As used in this section, the term ‘person’ includes an individual, corporation, partnership, association, State , munic ipality , and political subdivis ion of a State .

“ (j) As used in this section, the term ‘municipa lity’ means a city, town, borough, county , parish, distri ct, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law.

“ (k) There is hereby au thorized to be appropriated not in excess of $25,000,000 for an enforcement construction grant fund. The Surgeon General is authorized to make gran ts from such fund to any State, municipality , or inte rstate agency requested or required by the Commissioner or the Secreta ry to cons truct remedial facilities after a conference, hearing, or court action. Such grants shall be for the purpose of providing financial assistance in the construction of such remedia l facilities, and shall be made only if sufficient need therefor is dem onst rated to the satisfaction of the Surgeon General. No projec ts receiving gran ts from funds appropriated pur suant to section 5 of this Act shall receive any moneys from such grant fund. Sums appropriated for such gra nt fund shall remain available until expended, and shall be allo tted in accordance with regula tions prescribed by the Secre tary of Hea lth, Educatio n, and Welfare.”

[H .R . 10519, H .R . 10615, H .R . 11524, 87th Cong. , 2d sess.]

A B IL L To ex tend an d st reng then the Fede ra l air pol lu tio n contro l pro gra m

Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at the Act of July 14, 1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857-1857g), is hereby amended to read as follows:

“ d ecla ra tio n of po li cy

“Section 1. In recognition of—“ (a) the dange rs to the public hea lth and welfare, the inju ry to agricu l

tural crops and livestock, the damage to and the deteriora tion of proper ty, and the hazards to air and ground t ranspo rta tion, from air pollution,

88470— 62------- 2

6 AIR POLLUTION

“ (b) the pr imary responsibili ties and rights of the States and local governments in preventing and controlling air pollution, and

“ (c) the need for national leadership in the development of cooperative Federa l, State, and local programs for the prevention and contro l of air pollution ,

it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to support, in Federal departments and agencies, and elsewhere, research, tra ining, and othe r activiti es relating to the prevention and control of air pollution, and to provide Federa l technical assistance, services, and financial aid to Sta te and local governments in connection with the development and execution of their air pollution prevention and control programs. To this end, the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service shall administe r this Act through the Public Heal th Service and under the supervision and direction of the Secreta ry of H ealth , Education , and Welfare.

“ d e f in it io n s

“ Se c . 2. When used in th is Act—“(a) the term ‘air pollution control agency’ means any of the follow'ing:

“ (1) A St ate heal th auth ority, or, in t he case of any State in which there is a single State agency other tha n the Sta te heal th author ity charged with respons ibility for enforcing S tate laws relating to the prevention and control of ai r pollution, such othe r Sta te agency;

“ (2) An agency established by two or more States and having s ubs tant ial powers or duties pertaining to the prevention and control of air pollu tion;

“ (3) A city, county , or other local governmen t heal th author ity , or, in the case of any city, county, or other local government in which there is a single agency othe r than the heal th autho rity charged with responsibility for enforcing ordinances or laws relating to the prevention and control of air pollution, such other agency;

“ (4) An agency of two or more cities, counties, or othe r local governments located in the same State or in different Sta tes and having sub stan tial powers or duties pertaining to the preven tion and control of air pollution.

“(b) The term ‘State ’ means a State, the Dis tric t of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Is lands, and Guam.

“ c o o per a tiv e a c t iv it ie s

“ Se c . 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall, subje ct to the provisions of section 10, cooperate with and encourage cooperative activ ities by all Federal departm ents and agencies having functions relat ing to the prevention and control of a ir pollution, so as to assure the utiliza tion in the Federa l a ir pollution control p rogram of all appropr iate and available facilities and resources within the Federal Govern ment.

“ (b) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperat ive activ ities by the States and local governments for the prevention and control of a ir pollu tion; encourage the enac tment of improved and, so far as pract icable in the light of varying conditions and needs, uniform Sta te and local laws relating to the prevention and control of air pollution; and encourage agreements and compacts between States for the prevention and control of a ir pollution.

“ (c) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negot iate and enter into agreements or compac ts, not in conflict writh any law or tre aty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of air pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws re lating there to, and (2) the establ ishment of such agencies, join t or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements or compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory upon any Sta te a par ty thereto unless and until it has been approved by the Congress.

“ r esea r c h , in v e st ig a t io n s , t r a in in g , an d o th er a c t iv it ie s

“ Se c . 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall—“ (1) conduct in the Public Hea lth Service,“ (2) encourage, coopera te with, and render technical services and financial

assistance to air pollution contro l agencies and othe r appropriate public or priv ate agencies, inst itutions, and organizations, and individuals, in the conduct of, and

AIR POLLUTION 7“ (3) promote the coordination of research, investigations , experiments,

training, demonstrat ions, surveys, and studie s relating to the causes, effects, exte nt, prevention, and control of ai r pollution.

“ (b) In carrying out the provisions of the preceding subsection the Surgeon General is authorized to—

“ (1) collect and make avai lable, through publica tions an d other appropria te means, the resul ts of and othe r information, including appropr iate recommendations in connection therewith, pertaining to such research and other act ivi ties ;

“ (2) cooperate with other Federal departm ents and agencies, with air pollution control agencies, with o ther public and p rivate agencies, insti tutions, and organiza tions, and with any industries involved, in the preparation and conduct of such research and othe r activ ities;

“ (3) make grants to air pollu tion control agencies, to othe r public or nonprofit private agencies, ins titu tions, and organizations , a nd to individuals, upon such term s and conditions as he may determ ine;

“ (4) contrac t with public or private agencies, inst itutions, and organizations, and with individuals, with out regard to section 3648 of the Revised Statu tes (31 U.S.C. 529);

“ (5) provide train ing for, and make training grants to, personnel of air pollution control agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications;

“ (6) establish and maintain research fellowships, in the Public Heal th Service an d a t public or nonprofi t private educational inst itut ions or research organizations;

“ (7) collect and dissemina te, in cooperation with other Federa l dep artments and agencies, and with other public or private agencies, insti tutions, and organizations having rela ted responsibili ties, basic da ta on chemical, physical, and biological air qua lity and othe r inform ation perta ining to air pollution and the prevention and control thereof.

“ grants for d ev elo pm e n t , in it ia t io n , o r im pr o v em en t of a ir po llu ti o n CONTROL PROGRAMS

“ S ec . 5. (a) The Surgeon General is authorized to make grants of limited dura tion to air pollution control agencies for projects for the development, initia tion, or improvement of programs for the prevention and control of air pollution.

“ (b) Any grant for a project made unde r this section from the appropria tions for any fiscal year shall include such amounts as the Surgeon General determines to be necessary for succeeding fiscal years for completion of the Federa l part icipation in the project as approved by him.

“ (c) Such gran ts shall be made, in accordance with regulations, upon such terms and conditions as the Surgeon General may find necessary to carry out the purposes of th is section.

“ s pe c if ic pr o b lem s o f a ir po llu tio n

“ S ec . 6. The Surgeon General may conduct invest igations and research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of ai r pollution confronting any air pollution control agency with a view to recommending a solution of such problem, if he is reques ted to do so by such air pollution control agency or if, in his judgment , such problem may affect or be of concern to communities in various par ts of the Nation or m ay affect any comm unity or communities in a S tate o ther than that in which the m att er causing or contributing to the pollution originates.

“ p u b l ic c o n fer e n c e s on s pe c if ic pr o b lem s of a ir pollu tio n

“ S e c . 7. (a) Whenever, on the basis of repor ts, surveys, or studies, he believes it appropriate, or whenever requested by any air pollution control agency, the Surgeon General may call a public conference on any problem of air pollution which may affect or be of concern to communities in various parts of the Nation or which may affect any community or communities in any Sta te other than the Sta te in which the ma tte r causing or contribu ting to the pollution originates . Any such conference shall be conducted by a board composed of not less than five members, appo inted by the Secretary of Health, Education , and Welfare, who shall be represen tative of the public, indu stry which is affected by or concerned with the problem, persons who are expert or have special knowledge in the m atter, interested Federal departm ents an d agencies, and interested air pollution control agencies.

8 AIR POLLUTION

“ (b) Subject to regulat ions of the Surgeon General, an opportun ity to be heard at such conference shall be accorded to all interested persons.“ (c) After consideration of the information presented at the conference and such other information as is available to it, the board shall make a repo rt and recommendations to the Surgeon General on such mat ters as the existence, cause, and effect of the air pollution on which the conference was held, progress toward its abatement, and othe r related mat ters . Such repo rt and recommendations, together with the comments and recommendations , if any, of the Surgeon General with respect there to, shall be available to the community or communities, government agencies, and industr ies concerned, and, to the extent the Surgeon General deems appropriate , to the public, bu t shall not be binding on any person, agency, or organization.“ (d) Members of any conference board appointed pursuant to subsection (a) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the United States shall, while part icipating in the conference conducted by such board or otherwise engaged on the work of such board, be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including trav el time, and while away from the ir homes or regular place of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au thorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service employed inte rmi tten tly.“ co o per a tio n by fed er a l a g e n c ie s to control a ir po llu tio n fr om

FED ER A L F A C IL IT IE S

“ Se c . 8. It is hereby declared to be the inten t of Congress th at any Federa l departm ent or agency having jurisd iction over any building, instal lation, or o ther prop erty shall, to the extent pract icable and consisten t with the interests of the United States and within any available appropriation s, cooperate with the Depar tment of Health, Educa tion, and Welfare and with any air pollution control agency in preventing and controlling the pollution of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any ma tter from or by such building, insta llatio n, or othe r property may cause or contribute to pollution of the air in such area.“ a d m in is tra tio n

“ Se c . 9. (a) The Surgeon General is authorize d to prescribe, with the approval of the Secretary of Health, Educa tion, a nd Welfare, such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or employee of t he Public Hea lth Service such of his powers and duties under th is Act, except the making of regulations, as he may deem necessary or expedient .“ (b) Upon the request of an air pollution control agency, personnel of the Public Hea lth Service may be detai led by the Surgeon General to such agency for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. The provisions of section 214(d) of the Public Hea lth Service Act shall be applicab le with respec t to any personnel so detailed.“ (c) There are hereby authorized to be appropr iated to the Depar tme nt of Health, Education , and Welfare such sums as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its funct ions under this Act.“ (d) Paym ents under grants made under this Act may be made in ins tallments, and in advance or by way of reimbursem ent, as may be de termined by the Surgeon General.

“ o th er A U TH O R IT Y NOT A FFEC T ED

“ Se c . 10. This Act shal l not be const rued as superseding or limiting the a uth orities and responsibilit ies, under a ny o ther provision of law, of the Surgeon General, or of the Public Health Service, or of any other Federa l officer, dep artm ent , or agency.“ sh o rt tit l e

“ Se c . 11. This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Air Pollution Contro l Act ’.”S e c . 2. The title of such Act is amended to read, “An Act to provide for air pollution prevention and control activi ties in the Public Hea lth Service of the Department of Health, Education , and Welfare, and for othe r purposes .”

AIR POLLUTION 9

(S. 455, 87th Conp., 1st sess.JAN AC T To provide for public hearings on air pollution problem s of more tha n local significance under, and extend the dura tion of, the Federal a ir po llutio n control law, and for other purposes

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives o f the United States of America in Congress assembled, Th at section 3 of the Act of July 14, 1955 (42 U.S.C. 1857b), is amended by strik ing out “, upon request of any State or local governmen t air pollution control agency,” , by strik ing out “such Sta te or local government air pollution control agency” and insert ing in lieu thereof “any State or local government air pollution control agency” , and by inserting before the period at the end thereof “, bu t only if reque sted to do so by such State or local government a ir pollution control agency or if, in his judgment, such problem may affect or be of concern to communities in various pa rts of the Nation or may affect any community or communities in a Sta te other tha n th at in which the matter causing or con tribu ting to the pollu tion orig inated.”Sec. 2. Such Act is fur the r amended by redes ignating sections 6, 7, and 8 as sections 7, 8, and 9, respect ively, and inser ting afte r section 5 the following new section:“Sec. 6. (a) Whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he believes it appropriate, or whenever requested by any Sta te or local governmen t air pollu tion contro l agency, the Surgeon Genera l may call a public hearing on any problem of air pollu tion which may affect or be of concern to communities in various parts of the Nation or which may affect any community or communities in any Sta te other than the Sta te in which the ma tte r causing or cont ributing to the pollu tion originates. Any such hearing shall be conducted before a board composed of not less t han five members, appo inted by the Secre tary of Health , Educatio n, and Welfare, who shall be represen tative of the public, industry which is affected by or concerned with the problem, persons who are expe rt or have special knowledge in the ma tter, inte rest ed Federal agencies, and intere sted Sta te or local governmen t air pollution contro l agencies.“ (b) Subject to regula tions of the Surgeon General, an opportu nity to be heard at such hearing shall be accorded to all inte rested persons.“ (c) After consideration of the information presented at the hearing and such other information as is available to it, the board shall make a repo rt and recommendations to the Surgeon General on such ma tters as the existence, cause, and effect of the air pollution on which the hear ing was held, progress toward its aba tem ent , and other related ma tter s. Such report and recommendations, togethe r w ith the comments and recommendations, if any , of the Surgeon General with respec t thereto , shall be available to the community or communi ties, Governm ent agencies, and indus tries concerned and, to the extent the Surgeon General deems appropriate, to the pub lic, bu t shall not be b inding on any person, agency, or organization .”Sec. 3. Section 5 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1857d) is amended by strik ing out “nine fiscal years beginning July 1, 1955, and ending June 30, 1964, not to exceed $5,000,000” in the first sentence , and inserting in lieu thereo f “eleven fiscal years beginning July 1, 1955, and ending Jun e 30, 1966, not to exceed $5,000,000”.Passed the Senate Septem ber 20, 1961.Att est: Felton M. J ohnston, Secretary.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., June 22, 1962.Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives.Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your lett er of March 6, 1962, giving us the opportu nity to report on House bill 10519. The bill is entit led “To extend and strengthen the Fede ral air pollu tion contro l prog ram.”The bill would extend and strengthen the present Air Pollution Control Act (Public Law 159, 84th Cong.) as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857-1857g). H.R . 10519 includes the subs tantive provisions of the current Air Pollution Control Act and addi tiona l provisions which would a dd to or modify certain aspects of the current act.This Depar tment favors the enactm ent of H.R. 10519 as it is in accord with the Pres iden t’s message regarding legislation needed to strengthen the Federal effort to prevent air pollution relat ive to a hea lth program.

10 AIR POLLUTION

This Dep artm ent has a direct inte rest in the aba tem ent of a ir pollution. Individuals who produce, handle, process, and market farm and forest products, including animals, crop plants, and forest trees upon which thi$ country depends for food, fiber, shelter, and other materials, are affected adversely by a ir pollu tant s. Adverse effects include not only the impairmen t of health and comfort to the individual bu t also normal growth and development of farm animals and plan ts and of forest trees.

Air pollution, especially from effluents containing fluorine, sulfur and other compounds and combustion products , has been demonst rated to cause extens ive crop, livestock, and forest damage. This Dep artm ent has autho rity and will undertake such research and other appropr iate action in the aba tem ent of air pollution affecting agricu lture as the relat ive importance of such problems make it necessary to include funds for them in budge t requests.

The Bureau of the Budget advises t ha t there is no objection to th e presentation of this repo rt from the s tand point of th e adm inis trat ion’s program.

Sincerely yours,Orville L. Freeman, Secretary.

Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., J une 22, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Reference is made to your request to the Secretary of Defense for the views of the Dep artm ent of Defense with respec t to H.R . 10519, 87th Congress, a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution contro l program. The Secretary of Defense has delegated to the Depar tment of the Army the respons ibility for expressing the views of the Depar tment of Defense thereon.

The purpose of H.R. 10519 is to extend and strengthen th e Federa l ai r pol lution control program by adding to the substance of th e existing Federal air pollu tion control program, authorized in title 42, United States Code, provisions which would do the following:

(а) recognize the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide national leadership;

(б) authorize the Surgeon General to make grants of limited dur atio n to air pollution control agencies for th e development , initi ation , or im provement of air pollution control programs (as dis tinc t from his present autho rity to award grants-in-aid and cont racts for research, train ing, and demonst ration pro jec ts);

(c) give consent of the Congress to the negotiation of ag reemen ts or compacts by two or more States for the establish ment of agencies to effectuate such agreements or compacts;

(d) autho rize the Surgeon General to detai l, upon request, personnel to air pollution contro l agencies;

(e) authorize th e Surgeon General to conduct studies on his own initi ativ e as well as on request from an air pollu tion contro l agency, and to make recommendations, concerning any air pollution problem of an inters tat e na ture or of significance to, or typical of air pollution problems confronting, communities in different par ts of the Nation;

(/) eliminate the t ime limitation (June 30, 1964) and $5 million ceiling on annua l appropriat ions.

The bill also conta ins a disclaimer of any inte ntion to l imit the functions of any Federal agency under any other provision of law relat ing to air pollution, which disclaimer appears to be at least as broa d as the disclaimer already contained in section 1857(f) of ti tle 42, United States Code.

The Depar tme nt of the Army on behalf of the Department of Defense has considered the above-mentioned bill. The Dep artm ent of Defense recognizes the danger to public heal th and welfare from air pollution and suppor ts air pollution aba tem ent programs to the full extent commensurate with milit ary security . To this end, the Departm ent of Defense cooperates by making avai lable unclassified results of research into the general control of air pollution for the benefit of the public. In the light of the above, and of the disclaimer adverted to in the preceding paragraph, the Depar tme nt of the Army on behalf of the Department of Defense interposes no objection to subj ect bill.

AIR POLLUTION 11Enactment of this legislation will cause no app arent increase in budgeta ry

requi rements of the Dep artm ent of Defense.This report has been coord inated within the Dep artm ent of Defense in accord

ance with procedures prescribed by the Secre tary of Defense.The Bureau of the Budget advises that , from the stand poi nt of the adm inist ra

tion’s program, there is no objec tion to the presenta tion of this report for the consideration of the committee.

Sincerely yours,Elvis J. Stahr, Jr.,

Secretary of the Army.

Executive Office of the President,Bureau of the Budget,

Washington, D.C., March 28, 1962.Hon. Oren H arris,Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your request of March 6, 1962, for the views of th e Bureau of th e Budget on H.R. 10519, a bill “To extend and strengthen the Federa l air pollution control prog ram.”

This bill includes the substan tive provisions of the cur ren t Air Pollu tion Control Act and would add to or modify the current act by:

(a) recognition of the need for the Federal Government to provide national leadership;

(b) authorization to the Surgeon General to make project g rants of limited duration to S tate and local ai r pollution control agencies for th e developm ent, initia tion, or improvement of control program s;

(c) consent of the Congress to the negot iation of agreements or compacts by two or more States for cooperative effort and mutual assistance, and for the estab lishm ent of agencies to effectuate such agreements or compacts;

(d) authorization to the Surgeon General to detail, upon request, personnel to air pollution control agencies;

(e) auth orization to the Surgeon General to conduct studies on his own initi ative and to make recommendations concerning any air po llution problem of in tersta te nature or of significance to, or typical of air pollution problems confronting, communi ties in different par ts of the Nation;

(/) authorization to the Surgeon General to call a public conference, on his owm initi ative or upon request of any air pollution contro l agency, for volu ntary formal expression of views by inte reste d persons on any problem of air pollution which is of concern to the communities in various par ts of the Nation, or which is of inters tate natu re;

(3) elimination of the time l imitation (June 30, 1964) and $5 million ceiling on annua l appropriations.

This proposed legislation was prepared by the adm inist ratio n and would carry out the recommendation for strengthening the Federal effort to pre vent and contro l air po llution contained in the Pres iden t’s message to the Congress on February 27, 1962, on heal th programs. I am authorized to advise you th at the enac tment of H .R. 10519 would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,Phillip S. Hughes,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

T he Secretary of Commerce,Washington, D.C., Ju ly 6, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives,Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This let ter is in reply to your request for the views of this Depar tment with respec t to H.R. 10519, a bill “To extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program.”

This bill was submitted to the Congress by the Departm ent of Heal th, Edu cation a nd Welfare and would ca rry o ut th e recom menda tions made by the President in his special hea lth message. Among other things the bill would dire ct the

12 AIR POLLUTION

Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, under the supervis ion and direction of the Secretary of Health , Education , and Welfare to :

1. Assure the utiliza tion in the Federa l air pollution control program of all appropriate and availab le facilities and resources within the Federal Government thro ugh a program of cooperative activities.

2. Encourage the States and local governments in the prevention and control of air pollution .

3. Conduct research, and encourage the conduct of research through financial assistance, in air pollu tion through grants, cont racts , train ing, research fellowships, cooperative activi ties and the collection and dissemination of information perta ining to the prevention and control of ai r pollution.

4. Make grants of limited duration to a ir pollution control agencies.5. Conduct investigations, research and s tudies in to air pollution problems

if requested to do so by an a ir po llution control agency or if, in his judgment, such problems are of broad natio nal inte res t or inters tate in character .

6. Call a public conference on any problem of air pollution which is in tersta te in nature or is otherwise of national significance.

7. Elimination of the time limi tation (June 30, 1964) and $5 million ceiling on annu al appropriations.

This Dep artm ent has consistently supp orted a vigorous Federal program in air pollution since its inception in 1955. Air pollution affects every segment of our life and economy. It causes large monetary losses due to corrosion and soiling; it demonstrably affects our weather now and, may present a serious geophysical problem in the future . These imp ortant effects are in addition to the heal th burden placed on our population. This Departm ent, thro ugh its Weather Bureau and its National Bureau of Standards, has an inte rest in, and can make contributions to, bet ter solutions of the tot al air pollution problem.

Section 3(a) rela ting to cooperat ive activ ities recognizes the inte res t of other Federal departm ents and agencies in air pollution . It would require the Surgeon General to encourage cooperative ac tiviti es w ith departments and agencies hav ing functions rela ting to the prevention and control of air pollution so as to assure utiliza tion of all appropr iate and available Federal facilities and resources in the air pollution control program. We believe th at a continuing, integrated, Federa l program which utilizes the valuable competence in the various Federal dep artments and agencies is essential in order to combat the increasing air pollution problem.

This Depar tment favors the e nac tment of thi s legislation.The Bureau of the Budget advised th at the re would be no objec tion to the

submission of this repo rt from the standpoint of the adm inis trat ion’s program. The Bureau further advised th at ena ctment of th is legislation would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,Edward Gudeman,

Under Secretary o f Commerce.

Comptroller General of the United States,Washington, April IS, 1962.

Hon. Oren Harris,Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Your let ter of March 13, 1962, requests our comments on H.R. 10519, a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program.

Since we have no par ticu lar info rmation concerning the desirabili ty of the proposed legislation we make no recom mendations concerning the meri ts of t he bill, however , the following comments are offered for your consideration.

The bill is similar in many respects to the Federal Wate r Pollut ion Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 466, which originally vested author ity under th at act in the Surgeon General. Public Law 87-88, approved July 20, 1961, amended th at act and transfer red the authority conta ined there in to the Secre tary of Heal th, Education , and Welfare. Concerning the desirabili ty of such transfer of auth ority, the House Committee on Public Works sta ted , at page 4 of House Report No. 306, 87th Congress, in part as follows:

“* * * During public hearings the committee heard testimony favoring the estab lishm ent of a Federal Water Pollution Control Administration in the D epa rtment of Health, Education , and Welfare. The President has urged the estab-

AIR POLLUTION 13lishment of a ‘special un it’ in the Public Health Service to administer both air and water pollution control programs.

“The Secretary of Hea lth, Education , and Welfare, recognizing the need to upgrade pollution control activi ties in his Dep artm ent, asked the committee for '* * * time to take a complete fresh look at the situation and the various proposals for dealing with i t. ’

“In order to give the Secre tary complete flexibility in effectuating his decision relating to the proper administ rative sta tus of th is program the bill approved by the committee would tr ansfer responsibility for the adm inist ratio n of the Federal wate r pollution control program from the Surgeon General to the Secre tary of Health, Education , a nd Welfare.

“This ac tion is in conformity with recommendation No. 14 of the first report of the Hoover Commission on Organiza tion of the Executive Branch of the Government (H. Doc. 55, 81st Cong.) which stat es:

“ ‘Under the President, the heads of departm ents mus t hold full responsibility for the conduct of the ir departm ents . There must be a clear line of autho rity reaching down through every step of the organ ization and no subordina te shall have authority independent from tha t of his super ior.’ ”

In view of thi s recent action by the Congress on water .pollution control legislation, your committee may wish to revise the present bill to also vest autho rity for air pollution control in the Secretary of Health , Education , and Welfare.

Section 4(b)(6) of the bill provides for the establish men t and maintenance of research fellowships. This section is similar to research fellowships provided by section 4(a)(4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466c(a)(4)) excep t th at under the Federal Water Pollut ion Contro l Act repor ts must be furnished to the Congress on the opera tions thereund er. Your committee may wish to consider whether s imilar reports should be required on operations under section 4(b) (6) of the bill.

No provision is made in the bill to require a grantee to keep adeq uate cost records of the projects or unde rtakings to which the Federal Government makes financial contr ibutions, or to author ize the Surgeon General or the Comptroller General to have access to the gran tee’s records for purposes of aud it and examination. In view of the increase in grant program s over the last several years, we believe tha t in order to determine whether g ran t funds have been expended for the purpose for which the grant was made, the grantee should be required by law to keep records which would fully disclose the disposition of those funds. We believe also th at the agency as well as the General Accounting Office should be permit ted to have access to the grantee’s records for the purpose of aud it and examination. We suggest, therefore, tha t a new section be added to the bill as folio ws:

“ re co rds an d a u d it

“ (a) Each recipien t of assistance under this Act shall keep such records as the Surgeon General shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the tot al cost of the project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance is given or used, and the amount of th at port ion of the cost of the project or undertakin g supplied by other sources, and such other records as will faci litate an effective audit.

“ (5) The Secretary of Hea lth, Educa tion, and Welfare and the Comptrolle r General of the United States , or any of their duly authorized represen tatives, shall have access for the purpose of aud it and examination to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipients th at are per tinent to the grants received under this Act.”

We would also favor the addit ion of a like section as an amendmen t to the Federal Wate r Pollution Contro l Act. Language similar to that suggested above is contained in H.R . 132, 87th Congress, repor ted by your committee August 21, 1961, and in section 25 of the Area Redevelopment Act, Public Law 87-27, approved May 1, 1961.

Sincerely yours,J o seph C a m pb ell ,

Comptroller General of the United States.

SS4 70— 62------3

14 AIR POLLUTION

Federal Aviation Agency, Washington, D.C., June 28, 1962.Hon. Oren H arris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in reply to your request of March 6, 1962, for the views of this Agency with respect to H.R . 10519, a bill to extend and stren gthen the Federal air pollution control program.This proposal recognizes the need for na tional leadership in the development of cooperat ive Federal, State , and local programs for the prevention and control of air pollution by: (a) encouraging inte rstate compacts for the prevention and control of air pollution; (6) authoriz ing the Surgeon General to make grants to air pollution control agencies and to others for research, and for the development and initiation, or improvement of programs for the prevention of air pollution; and (c) permitting the Surgeon General to initi ate research and to make surveys concerning any specific problem of air pollution.Authority is afforded the Surgeon General to call a public conference on any problem of air pollution, to be conducted by a five-member board, and at which interested persons shal l be afforded a hearing. The board shall make an advisory report and recommendations to the Surgeon General with respect to the air pollution problem under consideration.This Agency defers to the Department of Heal th, Educa tion, and Welfare in that it is the Department primarily concerned with the subject of the proposal.The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpo int of the adminis trat ion’s program to the submission of this repo rt to your committee.

Sincerely,N. E. H alaby, Administrator.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ,March 14, 1962.Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to your reques t for a re por t on H.R . 10519, a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program.H.R. 10519 embodies the adminis trat ion’s proposals in the area of air pollution. In the form of a dra ft bill it was transm itte d by this Depar tme nt to the Speaker of the House of Representa tives on February 27, 1962, and was re ferred to your committee on March 1.For the reasons given in our lett er to the Speaker in supp ort of the bill we recommend it s early enac tmen t.

Sincerely,Abraham Ribico ff, Secretary.

U.S. Department of the Interior,Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1962.Hon. Oren Harris,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.Dear Mr. Harris: There is pending before your committee H.R. 10519, a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program.We recommend the enactment of the bill.As the title of the bill sta tes, it is intended to extend and st reng then th e present Federal air pollution control program. The bill provides for air pollution prevention and technological source cont rol activities w ithin the Federa l Government wherever these can be provided by available resources. The Depar tment of the Interior has been active in air pollution aba tem ent research and inves tigat ions since before 1912, in which year its Bureau of Mines published thre e bullet ins on causes and means of preventing smoke emissions from coal-burning equipment. Publica tions followed shortly that recorded work of the Bureau of Mines on control of fumes from metallurgical processes and on developing a dequate venti lation stan dards for autom otive vehicula r tunnels. Through the years that followed until mid-1954, during which period the major assigned Fede ral respon-

AIR POLLUTION 15sibilities regarding air pollution were concentra ted within this Dep artm ent, a long and impressive list of achievem ents and their documenting publications was developed by the Bureau of Mines.

Since 1955, th is Depar tment has been pleased to cooperate, through i ts Bureau of Mines, in the Federa l air pollution aba tem ent p rogram th at became a primary responsibility of the Public Hea lth Service under Public Law 84-159. The Bureau of Mines air pollution interests center around technologic developments for the contro l of the sources of pollu tion which resul t from the production, processing, and utilization of minerals, mineral fuels, and their p roduc ts. Bureau research of automobile and diesel engine exhaust has mater ially contributed to the knowledge on this subject. Research on the problem of reducing air pollution from thermal powerplants and other indus trial, fuel-burning instal lations has provided much needed new inform ation on the development of economic means for reducing the concentra tion of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen in the effluent gases from the stack.

We favor the enactment of H .R. 10519 because we believe there is a need for increased emphasis on air pollution aba tem ent and because the bill provides the means and encouragement for the Surgeon General to utilize fully the resources available to him from agencies such as our own that have much to offer to the Federal program of air pollution aba tement.

The Bureau of the Budget has adv ised that the re is no objection to the presentation of this report from the stan dpo int of the adm inis trat ion’s program.

Sincerely yours,J ohn A. Carver, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

U.S. Department of Labor,Office of the Secretary,

Washington, June 22, 1962.Hon. Oren H arris,Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman H arris: This is in fur the r response to your request for the views of the Departm ent of Labor on H.R. 10519, a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program.

We strongly urge the enactm ent of H.R . 10519 which is the adm inistra tion’s proposal for strengthening the Federal effort to prevent air pollution.

Earl ier this year President Kennedy called attention to the problem of air pollution in his special message on health care and also in his conservation message. As the President pointed out, pollu tion of the air we brea the is a growing and serious problem in many areas; since fresh air can neither be piped into cities nor stored for future use, our only protectio n is to preven t pollution. The Pres iden t drew a paralle l between legislation needed in the field of air pollu tion and the legislation passed last year by Congress to enable us to accelerate our efforts to combat wate r pollution.

We believe th at the proposals contained in H.R. 10519 would be of grea t benefit to labor and industry , as well as to the general public. We prefer, however, to leave detai led discussion of its provisions to those agencies primarily concerned with i ts administ ration.

The Bureau of the Budge t advises tha t there is no object ion to the presentation of th is report from the standp oin t of th e adm inistratio n’s program.

Yours sincerely,Arthur J. Goldberg,

Secretary of Labor.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,February 27, 1962.

Speaker of the House of Representatives,Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Spea ker : I am enclosing for your consideration a dra ft of a bill to extend and strengthen the Federal air pollution control program by amending the present Air Po llution Con trol Act, Public Law 159, 84th Congress, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857-1857g). This bill would carry out the recommendations made by the President in his special heal th message.

16 AIR POLLUTION

The dra ft bill is broader in scope tha n S. 455, which was passed by the Senate last year. The bill includes the subs tant ive provisions of the current Air Pollut ion Contro l Act and additional provisions which would add to or modify certain aspects of the c urrent act by:

(a) Recognition of the need for the Federal Government to provide nat ional leadership;(5) Authorizat ion to the Surgeon General to make project gran ts of lim

ited dura tion to S tate and local air pollution control agencies for the development, initia tion, or improvement of control programs;

(c) Consent of the Congress to the negot iation of agreements or compac ts by two or more States for cooperat ive effort and mutual assistance, and for the estab lishm ent of agencies to effectuate such agreem ents or compacts;

(d) Authorizat ion to the Surgeon Genera l to detail, upon request, personnel to air pollution contro l agencies;

(e) Authorization to the Surgeon General to conduct studies on his own initi ative and to make recommendat ions concerning any air pollution problem of in tersta te nature or of significance to, or typical of air pollution problems confront ing communi ties in different par ts of the Nation;

(/) Autho rization to the Surgeon General to call a public conference, on his own initi ative or upon request of any air pollution control agency, for voluntary formal expression of views by inte rest ed persons on any problem of air pollution which is of concern to communities in various parts of the Nation , or which is of in ters tate nature ;(d) Elimination of the time limi tation (June 30, 1964) and $5 million

ceiling on annual appropria tions .While providing for needed Federal leadership in dealing with air pollution

problems, the bill recognizes the orimary responsibilities of the States and local governments in p reven ting and controlling air pollution.Air pollution is now a serious problem. In the fu ture , unless app ropriate action

is taken , the problem will increase greatly because of fu rther indust rial growth and concentrat ion of p opulation in urban areas. Our Na tion’s technological society produces great mater ial benefits for the people, bu t also creates, as byproduc ts, potentia l problems of contaminatio n of our environment. Air pol lution is not a temp orary problem, but one which will requi re continuing a ttention. Cont inuing research and control efforts will be necessary if ma jor adverse effects on the public heal th and welfare are to be prevented.

In view of the existing situation and the futu re potentia l, there is immediate need for a perm anent and more effective Federal air pollution control program. In view of the perman ent natu re of the problem and the need for contin uing national atte ntion to it, we consider the authorit ies proposed in the dra ft bill essential to the effective exercise of national leadership in dealing with this impor tan t problem.

Over the past 6 years, the Public Hea lth Service of this Depar tment has carried on, under the existing law, a limited program relating to air pollution. The activi ties of the Public Health Service to date have provided us ful i formation abo ut the extent of air pollution in the United States, the effects of air pollution unon heal th a nd property, and practica l means for measuring, assessing, and controlling air pollution. Technical assistance has been provided to States and communi ties on the appra isal of a ir pollution problems and on dealing with specific air pollution control problems. The Service has also conducted and supp orted the train ing of technical personnel needed in air pollution control activi ties. Although considerable progress has been made, much grea ter effort is needed if appropria te progress is to be accomplished nationally in both research and contro l activ ities .

Largely as a resul t of the Public Hea lth Service’s research program on air pollution, an impressive body of evidence is accumulating which links air pollution with increased mortal ity from cardioresp iratory causes, increased suscep tibili ty to respi ratory disease, and interference with normal respi ratory function. It is imp ortant to the heal th and welfare of our people th at the leads which have been developed be followed up quickly and thoroughly. The needs for research throughout the Nation in relation to air pollution problems have been evaluate d recent ly by an eminently qualified group of non-Federal consu ltants appointed by the Surgeon General of the Public Heal th Service. Their report, “N ation al Goals in Air Pol lution Research,” recommends approximately a threefold increase nationally in such research, with prop ortiona te increase in the Federal share of such overall effort.

In addition to a subs tant ially increased research program on air pollution problems, there is urgent need for grea ter Federal leadership to stimulat e more

AIR POLLUTION 17adeq uate application of existing techn ical knowledge in the actu al preventio n and contro l of ai r pollution on the pa rt of in dus try, the States, and local governments . The situation nationally is far from adeq uate to satisfy the needs for air pollution regulatory control on Sta te and local levels. Studies by the Public Health Service indica te th at all communities in the United States having a population grea ter tha n 50,000, and about 40 pe rcent of the communi ties of the 2,500-50,000 bracket, have air pollution problems. In total, abo ut 6,000 communities in this country have air pollu tion problems of varying degree for which active control programs should be init iate d or strengthened. At this time, air pollution programs having full-time staffs provide coverage to about only 45 percent of the residen ts in areas having air pollution problems, and many of these existing programs are not adequa te for the inten ded purpose. To provide the needed Federa l leadership in stimulat ion of grea ter effort throughout the Nation at Sta te and local levels in the application of existing technical knowledge to the actual preventio n and contro l of air pollution, we consider several steps to be necessary:

Firs t, the existing act provides some authorit ies which are useful in exercising such leadersh ip, namely, those providing for technical assistance, the train ing of personnel , and financial aid to States and local communities for surveys and studies and for demonst ration projects . The bill would permit more effective implementation of these authorit ies than has been possible to date because of existing limi tations of the present act.

Second, Federal assistance and stimulation in developing app ropriate legal and adm inis trat ive procedures for dealing with air pollution problems in local, regional, State , and inters tate areas is highly desirable . The provisions of section 3 of the dra ft bill pertainin g to cooperat ive activ ities would authorize several types of such assistance applicab le to a variety of common situat ions. For example, there is much need to incorporate into many existing air pollution control ordinances and regula tions provisions reflecting improved technical practices which have been and are being developed. Also, in our opinion, there is urgent need for more adequate State assistance on technical aspects of air pollu tion problems, part icularly to smaller communi ties where techn ical competence for coping with such matte rs is not generally available. The development of cooperat ive act ivitie s or join t action programs by local governments which share common air pollution problems with neighboring communi ties is also highly desirable and should be encouraged. The major portion of th e urban population of th e United States is concentra ted in such communi ty aggregat ions. The dra ft bill gives special at tention to and encouragement for the development by the States of compacts or agreements pertaining to t he many such situations w’hich are int ers tate in nature.

Third, we consider it highly desirable and recommend th at specific legislative author ity be provided, as included in section 5 of the dra ft bill, to make project gran ts of limited dura tion to air pollu tion control agencies for development , initia tion, or improvement of Sta te and local air pollu tion contro l programs. Authorization of such project gran ts to S tate and local governments would expand existing authorities and permit financial assistance of two general types:

(а) gran ts for appra isal of air pollution problems and development of control program s adapted to the needs of th e specific grantees, and

(б) grants for a limited period to init iate control program s or to improve existing programs.

The g rant s for appraisal of problems and development of control programs are proposed in order to encourage thi s basic step in regulato ry program development. In recognition of th e fact th at specific S tat e or local government funds may not be availab le for air pollution program purposes, no firm requ irements for matching of Federal grant funds would be specified; the re would be instances where some State or local financial partic ipat ion would be appropria te and would be encouraged.

Gran ts to States and local governments for the initiation or improvement of air pollution regu latory control programs would be made on a project basis upon approval of applications based upon a “workable plan.” Such gran ts would be made for a limited per iod, with suppor t in most cases not extending beyond 3 to 5 years. The workable plan requ irement would include the minimum standa rds needed for a reasonable assurance of atta ining the gran t purpose, such as the ava ilabi lity of appropriate regu latory laws, a nd the provision of suitab le technical personnel. Matching funds from the Sta te or local government appl icant would be an appropriate requirement for this phase of Federal grant assistance.

The grant program would also include provis ion for stimulatory gran ts, on a matc hing basis, to S tate a ir pollution control agencies to assist them in conducting desirable State- level activitie s for problem surveillance and extension of technical assistance to local agencies. Such Sta te technical suppor t is p articula rly needed

18 AIR POLLUTION

in dealing with problem s of smaller communities, and with inter jurisdictional problems. Provision would also be made in the grant program to assist in the estab lishm ent and extension of regulato ry control programs where interjur isdictional effort, either inters tate or interlocal, is indicated as desirable.

Any grant for a developmental project would include such amo unts as the Surgeon General determined to be necessary for succeeding fiscal years for completion of the Federal parti cipa tion in the project. Any grant for a project to init iate a control program, or to improve a control program, would similar ly include such amounts.

The moderate financial aid provided by this proposed gra nt program will serve as an effect ive nation al s timulation to needed Sta te and local air pollu tion control activ ities . This project grant approach to Federal assistance would provide flexibility in dealing with the varia tions in extent and degree of the problem s encountered in dif ferent areas, and with the var iety of adminis trat ive approaches in use by Sta te and local a ir pollution control agencies. Appropriate regula tions, governing matching funds requirements, and other conditions of award of these grants, and providing the necessary flexibility in grant adminis trat ion, would be promulgated afte r consulta tion with representat ives of State and local governments .

The dra ft bill further implements the Federal leadership role in three sign ificant ways:Firs t, the Surgeon General would be authorize d to unde rtake, on his own

initia tive, studies of any air pollution problem which may affect or be of concern to communities in various parts of the country or which is inter sta te in character.

Second, the d raf t bill would author ize the Surgeon General to call a public conference, on his own initi ative or on the request of an air pollu tion control agency, on any air pollution problem which may affect or be of concern to communities in various par ts of the country or which is inters tate in chara cter . This would enable the Departm ent of Health, Education, and Welfare to make a significant cont ribution by exercising Federal leadership in dealing with air pollution problems of broad significance.

Such conferences would cont ribute to the development and publication of recommendations based on the evaluation of da ta developed by the Public Health Service or presen ted by others, as well as on full consideration of the points of view of all part ies having a significant inte rest in such problems. Some of these problems are common to many communities in various par ts of the Natio n. Others involve pollution from sources within one Sta te which, through the movement of air masses, affects communities in other States . These types of problems can be expected to increase in number and extent with further urban ization, and the development of solutions for them may in many cases transcend the capabi lities of local agencies, and even of Sta te control authorities. The recomm endations result ing from the conferences would not be binding upon the par ticipan ts or anyone else; the purpose of the conferences would be simply to develop such recomm endations as a means of focusing public at ten tion on and developing support for the most carefully considered solutions to the problems which occasioned the conferences.

Third, the Surgeon General would be perm itted, upon request of an air pollution control agency, to detail personnel of th e Public Hea lth Service to such an agency for carrying out provisions of the act. Although under the current act the numbers of technical and professional persons trained has increased notab ly, there remains a considerab le gap in meeting the demands for such personnel. The Division of Air Pollution of the Public Health Service can improve Federa l-State-local relat ionsh ips and provide effective assistance by the detail of personnel to control agencies.

The elimina tion from the present act of the time limi tation and the ceiling on annual appropria tions is essential to adequa te impleme ntation of the several elements of the stren gthened air pollution program as provided for in the dra ft bill. Air pollution is a perman ent problem of our society and will require continued Federal attent ion . Removal of the time limi tation on conduct of the program is necessary to implement effectively the Federal function, part icularly as it involves cooperative activ ities with other organ izations. With respect to the appropriat ion ceiling, we fur ther believe th at such a ceiling is not desirable in legislation authorizing contin uing research and technical assistance activi ties. Such a ceiling may be an undesirable rest riction at t imes and at o ther tim es tend to encourage requests larger tha n cons isten t with overall circum stances and fiscal policy. We believe th at fiscal control can best be exercised through the annual appropriation process.

AIR POLLUTION 19The existing ac t, and the dra ft bill, are concerned with the air pollution contro l

program conducted by the Depar tment of Health, Education , and Welfare. Other Federal departments and agencies have functions rela ted to the stud y and control of air pollution . The dra ft bill, recognizing the contribution and in teres t of these other departments and agencies in a ir pollution matte rs, provides th at the Surgeon General shall coopera te with and encourage cooperative activ ities by all such dep artm ents and agencies, and that the bill does not supersede or limit the author ities and responsib ilities of such dep artments and agencies under othe r provisions of law.

In summ ary, then, I believe the draft bill would strengthen the Federa l air pollution program by provid ing for three essential elements: first, an expanded research program related to the causes, effects, and control of air pollution; second, Federal assistance to States and localities in the development and support of programs designed to apply more effectively the knowledge we now have and will have in the future to the actu al prevention and contro l of a ir pollut ion; and third , vigorous leadership in obta ining increased attention and the devotion of grea ter resources to the problems of a ir pollution control by all levels of government , indu stry , and the public.

I shall apprecia te it if you will be good enough to refer the enclosed draf t bill to the appropriate committee for consideration.

In compliance with Public Law 801, 84th Congress, there is enclosed a sta tement of cost estim ates and personnel requi rements which would be enta iled by enactment of th e proposed legislation.

The Bureau of the Budget advises th at enac tment of this legislation would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,A b e R ib ic o f f , Secretary.

P rogram : F ed er a l A ir P o llu tio n C o ntrol Estim ate of addi tiona l cost, 1963 -67

Appropria tion requirements:Gra nts to States and local agencies for

program in itiat ion an d improvement. Investigat ions of in ters tate or na tiona l

problem s init iated by Public HealthService......... ........................................

To tal requiremen ts.........................Expenditures:

Grants to State s and local agencies for program initia tion and impro vement.

Investigat ions of interstate or na tional problems init iated by Publ ic H ealthService____ _______ ____________

To tal expe nditures ........... ..............Man-years of employment for investiga

tions of inte rsta te or national problems initi ated by Publ ic Hea lth Service_____

Increased costs unde r new autho rity proposed

1963 1964 1965 1966 1967

$5,000,000 $6,000,000 $6.000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000

100,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 300,0005,100,000 6,200,000 6,250.000 6,300,000 7,300,000

1,000,000 2,200,000 3.400,000 4,600,000 6,000,000

90,000 190,000 238,000 290,000 290,0001.090,000 2,390,000 3,638,000 4,890,000 6,290,000

7 15 19 23 23

Note.—The above projected add itional costs relate only to new sub stan tive authoriza tions under the proposed legislation. Costs of implementation of additi onal ac tiv ity unde r existing au thor izat ion are not included. Project gran ts to State and local agencies from the appropria tions for any fiscal year would include such amounts as were determined to be necessa ry for succeeding fiscal years for completion of the Federal partic ipat ion in the projects.

Mr. R obe rts . The people of this coun try have been concerned ab ou t a ir pol lutio n for m any ye ars but in rece nt yea rs, with the a dv en t of smog on the wes t coas t and in othe r areas, the public concern has been incre asing.

Legi slation se tting up a 5-year pro gra m of Fed era l aid was ena cted in Ju ly 1955. Th is was Pub lic Law 159 of the 84th Congress. Tha t law recognizes air pollution ma y end ang er the public he alt h and welfare, injure crops and livestock, dam age pro perty , and cre ate cos tly

20 AIR POLLUTION

hazar ds for air and gro und tra nspo rta tio n. No Feder al enforcement ac tiv ity is authorize d by t hat a ct and the resp ons ibil ity for con trol ling ah- pol lutio n is l eft with St ate and local governments .

In September 1959, the original ac t was extended 4 yea rs. Th us we need to ac t thi s session if the program is no t to be in ter rupted .

In 1960, Congress ena cted legisla tion sponsored by our colleague on the com mit tee , Mr . Schenck, calling on the Surgeon Gen eral to make an invest iga tion of motor vehicle exhaust fumes and rep or t to the Congress on the effect of these fumes on human hea lth . This was filed ear ly thi s mo nth . The rep or t has a grea t deal of valuab le info rmatio n on thi s im po rta nt prob lem, bu t points ou t th at furth er stu dy is need ed. Tha t stu dy would be made possible by the legis lation we a re cons idering today.

The subcom mit tee is p leased to have thi s op po rtu ni ty to ob tain the views and suggestions of our colleagues regard ing the legislation need ed to p rovide a Fede ral program to cope with this grow ing p roble m of air p ollu tion .

I have at this time a sta teme nt from the Honorable Jame s C. Cor man, Member of Congress from Cal ifornia. I t will be inserted in the record.

(The statem en t of Hon. Jam es C. Cor man follows:)Statement by Hon. J ames C. Corman, a Representative in Congress

From the State of CaliforniaMr. Chairman, my name is James C. Corman. I am the Rep resentative to

Congress from the 22d D istri ct of California. I am most pleased and honored to have the privilege of offering this brief sta tem ent in supp ort of H.R. 10519, to extend and strengthen the air pollution control program of the United States .

As a member of the Los Angeles City Council before coming to Congress, I found myself part icularly close to the* problem of air pollution in the Na tion’s thi rd largest city. As I am sure you know, the problem is particular ly acute in Los Angeles—due to several factors, including a pecul iar weather phenomenon known as the inversion layer, as well as the h igh intensi ty of automobiles and the presence of many industries which release p ollutants into the atmosphere.

The fight against air pollution in our part of th e coun try has been a long and expensive one, start ing righ t af ter World War I I, when “smog”—a word coined in Los Angeles, incidentally—became an increas ingly serious blight on our city. The county of Los Angeles estab lished an air pollution control dist rict , which is now headed by Mr. R. Smith Griswold. I v entu re to say t ha t Mr. Griswold and his team of scientists and enforcem ent personnel have dug deeper and more tho roughly into this ma tte r tha n any other local autho rity in this area of public concern.

The cost to th e Los Angeles taxpayer has been high, bu t the benefits have been equally good. Although air pollution remains a problem, the intensity and frequency of the attack s are diminishing every year. I believe most of the credi t must go to Mr. Griswold and his team, who have institu ted farsighted programs for control of smog and have fough t them through local and Sta te governments, sometimes against great public opposition.

Because the cost of this bat tle has been so h igh for Los Angeles taxpayers, I have long fel t th at a reappraisal of prim ary responsibility is in order. Not th at I would exempt local governments, such as ours in Los Angeles, from responsi bility in areas of purely local concern. For example, I don ’t believe Los Angeles taxpayers should be asked to finance research into pollution stemming from coal burners—because we don’t burn coal in our pa rt of the country—any more tha n Pitt sburgh taxpaye rs should be saddled with the problem of oil refinery pollutants .

On the other hand , many sources of smog are universal: the automobile exhaust, in part icular. I see no reason why the responsib ility for combating and overcoming this problem should devolve solely upon the taxpayer in Los Angeles, or any other city, nor why our research (which will benefit citizens of every commun ity troub led with smog) should go along independent of, and oblivious to, similar research programs in oth er communities o r under the Federa l Government. I believe, in sh ort, th at the Federal Government has a responsibility in this area— and through th at Government, so do all the citizens of our grea t Nation who suffer from or are pote ntia l sufferers from this menace.

AIR POLLUTION 21The legislation before you, as I understand it, introduces some new elements

into the Federal Governm ent’s concern in air pollution—notably in the areas of appraisal of pollution problems, and assistance in thei r control. I believe this is someth ing we should have done long ago. I think I can speak for every citizen of Los Angeles County when I say th at any step which hastens the day of pure, clean air in our ci ty would be welcomed. H.R . 10519 is a g iant step in t ha t d irection.

In conclusion, Mr. Chai rman , may I commend the bill and its auth or, and urge its favorable consideration by this comm ittee. And I earnestly hope th at it is adequately funded by the app ropriate committees of t he Congress, in order that its aims be properly carried o ut.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Roberts. Also I would like to insert into the record statements

received from our colleagues the Honorable John E. Fogar ty and the Honorable Gordon L. McDonough. The statem ents will be inserted at this point.

(The statements of Hon. John E. Fogarty and Hon. Gordon L. McDonough follow:)Statement of Hon. John E. Fogarty, a Representative in Congress From

the State of Rhode Island

Mr. Chai rman, I should like to make some brief comments in suppor t of H .R. 10519 and identical bills H .R. 10615 and 11524.

As chairman of the House Labor, Health, Education , and Welfare Appropriation Subcommittee, I have had a special opportu nity to become famil iar with the Na tion’s heal th problems, including air pollution. As you know, my committee has held extended hearings on this and other environmental hea lth prob lems, during which we have taken test imony from many outside specialis ts as well as those in the Public Hea lth Service.

In a speech which I delivered in Rhode Island last October an d which was published in the Congressional Record of March 14, 1962, I included the following sta tem ent : “As a result of these hearings and my fur the r stud y of the air pollution problem, I am convinced th at its solution will requ ire a cooperative, a join t approach, on th e p ar t of the Federal G overnment, the Sta tes, and local communities. For none of these can do alone what needs to be done.”

In my opinion, Mr. Chai rman , these ident ical bills a re well des igned to foster the development of just such a cooperative approach. Of great significance to me is the recognition embodied in these bills of the necessity to transl ate research into action . Greater emphasis needs to be focused on the application of existing knowledge in air pollution control; th at is, action to preven t or aba te pollution. These bills recognize the prim ary responsibili ty of Sta te and local governmen t agencies to translate existing knowledge into action. They fur the r recognize th at these agencies need Federal techn ical and financial aid if the y are to develop and carry out the ir programs effectively. These bills would continue the philosophy and policy of the Federa l p rogram with respect to complemen tary roles of Federal , Sta te, and local governments.

There a re many communities in the United States which suffer from the effects of various kinds of air pollution, bu t have done little or nothing abo ut them. The reasons may be financial or they may be merely due to a lack of t echnical know-how. H.R. 10519 and its sister bills will do much to correct this s itua tion by provid ing new means of Federal leadership and impetus to action in many communities now quietly suffering from pollu ted air. I’m happy to note th at my own distric t, Providence, R.I., has been activ e for some time in the control of air pollution. As early as 1947, comm unity pressures led to the establ ishment of an ordinance inten ded to diminish smoke emissions.

In 1956, Providence enac ted fur ther regulat ions designed to ban the open burning of refuse and to control the emissions of soot, fly ash and certain noxious vapors and gases. In 1961, continued interest in keeping the air clean, resulted in Providence’s u ndertaking more sophistica ted techniques in assessing air pollution. Assisted by the Public Hea lth Service, the Division of Air Pollution and Mechanical Equ ipment and Installa tions of the city of Providence conducted a “p ilot” sampling study of the air. During both summer and winter, pollutan ts such as sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide and many othe r chemicals and compounds were measured, providing valuable information to gage th e progress being made in the fight against pollu ted air over Providence. The ident ical

88470—62------ 4

22 AIR POLLUTION

bills, I believe, would encourage and assist the city of Providence as well as many other communities which undertake to clean up their air. I would like to quote a few remarks by Mr. Genaro G. Costantino , the chief air pollution control officer of Providence , which appeared in the Providence Bulletin of June 5. “W hat can we do in Providence when residen ts of the Nor th End complain abou t odors and fumes from the Pawtucket incinera tor, jus t across the city line? I would be firmly in favor of a S tate air pollution law or code. We need it. More th an that, I would like to see an area code, enforced alike by all th e States up and down the coast.” I concur in Mr. Cos tantino’s views and I feel th at the bill introduced by you, Mr. Chairman, will help to bring abou t necessary control activity by States , local agencies, and regional organizations.Over the pas t few years I find myself more deeply concerned with the growth of those areas of public concern now being identified as environmental health problems. In parti cular, I have closely observed the growing impact of the moto r vehicle on public heal th and safety. I note with special gratification the Surgeon General’s recent report on the problems associate with moto r vehicle emissions and public health as forwarded to the Congress under the direction of the Schenck Act. In many communities in New England and elsewhere thro ughout our count ry, emissions from motor vehicles represent a significant proportion of the tota l air contamination . It would be a vas t misunderstanding of th e national scope of the problem if it were th oug ht th at only Los Angeles and New York City suffer from smog associated with motor vehicle wastes.Although there is some progress on the pa rt of the automobile indu stry in the control of some emissions from motor vehicles, we are a long way from an effective solution. With the eventual utilization of a crankcase ventila ting device in most motor vehicles as now promised by the industry, we can a t best expect only abou t a 25-percent reduct ion of hydroca rbon emissions. Even the figure of a 25-percent reduction is not realistic, since we can expect an increase in the tota l number of automobiles which will offset this improvement. The remaining 75 perc ent of such emissions are exhaus ted by the tailpipe over which virtually no contro l is now exercised. The Federal Government, State s, local governments, the au tomotive indus try, the petroleum industry * * * all share responsibility in this pressing problem which begs for solution. Therefore , I urge the wholehearted support of these identical bills. We, in the Federa l Government , mus t provide the stimulation and leadership for the othe r segments of society to face the ir responsibilities with confidence.I note th at the new provisions in these bills per tain primarily to expanded Federal assistance to Sta te and local governments in the ir control programs. I think we all stan d in agreem ent with this policy. Thus, the bill would autho rize gran ts to States and local governments for s tudy and appra isal of thei r problems and for the development and expansion of the ir contro l programs; they would author ize the negotia tion of compacts between States for cooperative effort and mutual assistance; they would authorize the detailing of Public Hea lth Service personnel to States and local agencies on their request; and they would autho rize Federal studies and public conferences on problems which are inte rst ate or typica l of problems faced by many communities. Also, the bills would provide perm anent author ity for the Federal Government to conduct its necessary activ ities toward solution of a problem which promises to be with us for a long time to come.If we are to successfully mount a total national effort capable of meeting this problem, all of the provisions of these bills are essential to effective Federa l participation. We must keep in mind tha t the factors responsible for ai r pol lution problems continue to increase with our society’s expanding pat terns of urbaniz ation, industrialization, and energy use. As this growth continues, more and more cities and towns will place a grea ter burden on the air resource, which canno t be augmented and therefore must be conserved through proper controls. It is already app arent th at the air supplies available to some of our cities are overburdened with pollutan ts. Wh at’s more, the facto rs of growth which promise to fur ther intens ify the problems of air pollution will not s tand still. Neither should we.

Statement of Hon. Gordon L. McDonough, a Representative in CongressFrom the State of California Before the Committee on I nterstate and Foreign Commerce, on H.R . 9929Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the problem of “smog,” the common term used to identify all forms of air pollu tion, aerosols, and gases, has grown during the past 20 years in the serious na tur e of it s effects upon human heal th and

AIR POLLUTION 23

well-being until it is now a problem which must be considered at the nation al level as of prime importance to the welfare of the entir e Nation.

The United States has developed as an industria l natio n with the greates t indust rial growth occurring in urban areas where population expansion has taken place at an unbelievable accele rated rate .

Metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Calif., have doubled and tripl ed in population , and some smaller communities in the Los Angeles metropo litan area from which people commute to work have registered a 1,000-percent population increase since 1950.

All over the country, in a reas where indu strial and commercial growth has been great , the problem of air pollu tion has developed in proportion, and it is now a problem seriously affecting both urban and agricultural areas thro ugh out the United States .

Because air po llution as a major th reat to the heal th and well-being of Americans is a relat ively new problem, its solution is difficult. But progress has been made, especially in the field of industry where devices to eliminate the release of air pol lutants in the atmosphere have been qui te effective.

In Los Angeles, the backyard burn ing of trash, another contributor to air pollution, was eliminated by law proh ibiting the disposal of t ras h by th e backyard incinera tors.

Today air pollution experts have agreed th at the one remaining source of uncontrolled air pollution—tha t is, the one source where no cons truct ive action has been taken to achieve at least par tia l elimination—is the modern exhaus t from the Nation’s priv ate and commercial motor vehicles, and this is the area where steps must be taken to contro l this cause of air pollution at its source, within the mechanism of the motor vehicle itself.

The Sta te of California has recognized the need for imme diate action in this field, and the California Motor Vehicle Pollu tion Control Board was formed in July I960. This board has al ready approved nine an ti-air -pollution devices which have been gran ted certification. After the board approves two or more devices they become mandato ry on new cars sold in California after April 1963 under California law.

G. C. Hass, supervising engineer , repor ted th at recent te sts of average California cars by the California Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board staff verifies the need to contro l two sources of po llutan ts from motor vehicles. Fumes from the automobile crankcase, if not controlled, would dump approximately 550 tons of smog-forming sub stance into Los Angeles a ir every day. Particles from the auto exhaust, if not control led by devices, would add 1,200 tons of po llutan ts daily in th at same city. This is indicative of the importance of the moto r vehicle in smog format ion in metropol itan areas not only of California but of the whole Nation .

H. It. 9929, the bill which I introduce d, would prohibit the manufac ture, sale, use in commerce, or the imp orta tion into the United States of any moto r vehicle which discharges unburned hydrocarbons or other noxious gases in amounts harmful to human heal th in am ounts in excess of the s tandar ds prescribed by the Surgeon General, after the Surgeon General of the Public Hea lth Service has conducted such research as he may deem necessary to prescribe standa rds as to the amou nts of unburned hydrocarbons and o ther noxious gases harmful t o human heal th which are safe, from the s tan dpoin t of human health.

The importance of air-pol lution control a t all sources cann ot be too highly stressed. Man can live 5 weeks withou t food and 5 days with out water. But he perishes after 5 minutes without air.

California, at the Sta te level, has alrea dy acte d to bring moto r vehicles under regulat ion for air pollution control. But the problem of a ir pollution is nationwide, and to achieve effective contro l of air pollution from all types of motor vehicles, regula tion mus t also be established at th e national level.

One of the fundamenta l responsibilities of government is the protectio n of the hea lth and welfare of the people. Air p ollut ion is a problem th at will continue to mount and increase in inte nsi ty with the continuing phenomenal growth of our Nation. Delay in the establishme nt of effective air pollution contro l in all fields will only perm it the problem to intensify and th e danger of its effects to increase.

Action for air pollution control should be taken at the natio nal level now. I sincerely urge th at this committee give favorable consideration to H.R . 9929 at this time.

Mr. R obe rts . I also have three tele gram s for the reco rd. One from Willi am J. Phil lips , cha irm an of the Air Pol lution Co mm itte e of the Na tio na l Associatio n of Co un ty Officials, Ora nge Co un ty, Calif.

24 AIR POLLUTION

Another from Da vid W. Bird , pre sident , Na tional Assoc iation of Co un ty Officials.

And final ly a telegram from Paul J. Anderson, cha irm an, Sou the rn Cal ifornia Air Pol lution Coo rdinat ion Council which was sent to our colleague, Hon. D. S. Saund from Cal ifornia and forw arded on to the comm itte e.

These will be filed for the reco rd.(The docum ents refe rred to are as follows:)

Orange, Calif ., June 22, 1962.Hon. Kenneth A. Roberts,U.S. Congressman, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We strongly suppor t air pollution legislation now before your committee and urge you recommend adoption of this legislation.

William J. Phillips,Air Pollution Chairman, National Association of County Officials.

Washington, D.C., June 25, 1962.Chairman Kenneth A. Roberts,Subcommittee on Health and Safety, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign

Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.:On behalf of the National Association of County Officials, I request th at favor

able consideration be given to H.R. 10519 prese ntly considered by your committee. We feel this legislation will provide needed stimulation toward local efforts and increased Federal leadership in the field of a ir pollution.

David W. Bird , President.

Riverside , Calif ., June 24, 1962.Hon. D. S. Saund,House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

Recently our council gave unanimous endorsement and suppor t to enactment of H.R . 10519 relat ing to Federal air pollution legislation. We urgently and sincerely request th at you support and make a forceful presenta tion of our thinkings to the Roberts committee meeting to be held on H.R . 10519 Monday, June 25, in Washington, D.C.

Paul J. Anderson,Chairman, Southern California Air Pollution Coordinating Council.

Mr. R oberts . I have also a le tte r from the Honorab le Ro be rt F. Wagner, mayor of the city of New York, da ted Ju ne 20, 1962, which will be filed for the record .

This , I think, is a very good le tter a nd I will read it into the reco rd a t this time.

(The le tter referred to is as follows:)City of New York,

Office of the Mayor,New York, N. Y. , Jun e 20, 1962.

Hon. K enneth A. Roberts,House of Representatives,Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman R oberts: By th is communication, I should like t o express my strong supp ort of your bill (H.R . 10519) referred on March 1, 1962, to the Committee on Inters tat e and Foreign Commerce. As mayor of th e city of New York, a metropolis deeply concerned with the threat, cost and annoyance of air pollution, I regard speedy enactment of this piece of legislation as a vita l step toward solving this nation al problem on a nationwide basis.

There are few areas in these United S tates ou tside New York C ity more a cute ly aware of the costly weight of polluted air or of the enormity of th e campa ign we mus t launch to e radicate it. The annu al cost to New York Sta te from air pollution has been estim ated by the Depar tment of Health, Educatio n, and Welfare as approximately $150 million. While most of this amount can be at tribu ted to prop erty damage in New York City alone, it probably amounts to a bare fraction of unreportable damage to the heal th of our citizens from all types of uncontrolled air pollution.

AIR POLLUTION 25Since 1952, with the estab lishm ent of a dep artm ent of air pollution control, this city has pursued an active program of prevention, control , regulation and research of the agents polluting our air. Our act ivity in this field has been constantl y increasing. Last year our dep artment of air pollu tion control received and inves tigated nearly 20,000 compalints regarding air pollution . In many cases, remedia l action was t ake n or begun. But the sources of a ir pollution are, as you well know, many and often difficult to locate.We in New York City have take n steps toward legislating for the mandato ry use of blow-by devices on the exhausts of all new automobiles ; we have enacted measures to curtail air pollution from open burning, industria l outlets and many othe r sources. We have established seven air pollution monitoring sites thro ughout our city and main tain a carefully organized labo ratory research program into the prevention and effect of air pollution . But, even with so far-reaching a program, it is my firm belief th at we are not doing all tha t we can and must.Your proposed bill, which proposes further to extend and st reng then the Federa l air pollution control program under the coordination of the Surgeon General’s Office, is of vita l importance since i t recognizes the pa ten t fact th at air pollution is no respecter of S tate, city, or, indeed, nation al boundaries. Hence, it is imperative th at effective coordination and policing of a ir pollution be undertaken on a Federa l basis.I have insisted on a program for cleaner air in New York City as a precondition for the health of th is metropolis. But it will prove impossible to att ain our goal of transforming the noxious fume-laden atmosphere of our cities i nto fresh, clean air unless we can win Federal supp ort and action for a program th at will rise above any manm ade delineat ions of te rrit ory or responsib ility.Federal involvement in this national problem (as proposed in your bill) through financial and technica l assistance will do much to arouse needed national suppor t and awareness, effect a closer coordination of the antipollution activi ties of the- individual cities and States, and bring closer the day when fresh air in these United States is no longer an exclusively rura l monopoly.Yours sincerely,

Robert F. Wagner, Mayor.Mr. Roberts. Now, representing Congressman Seymour Halpern, of New York, is Mr. Charles R. Foster, legislative assistant.Mr. Foster, you may proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. SEYMOUR HALPERN, A REPRESENTATIVEIN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DIS TRICT OFTHE STATE OF NEW YORK (AS READ BY CHARLES R. FOSTER,LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT)

Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, in support of H.R. 10615, which I introduced, and, of course, of identical bills 10519 and 11524, sponsored respectively by yourself and Congressman Corman, I should like to make two principal points. The first refers to the growing air pollution problem in my own city, America’s largest. The second is based on my concern for small farmers, especially those gardeners in the suburbs and on the outskirts of all our cities.

In New York City last year, there was a slight rise in sootfall, to an average total of 68.4 tons per square mile per m onth; and a more substantial rise in suspended particu late mat ter—particles heavier than those in smoke. These increased 14 percent over the previous year, to 267 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

Under the able leadership of Commissioner Arthur J. Benline, we have an active city departmen t of air pollution control. Under the city’s program, 5,428 violation notices were issued in 1961 as against 5,077 in 1960. However, cleaning up New York’s air will require concerted action throughout the metropol itan area and involving governmental jurisdictions in three States . The bills before you provide a mechanism for needed Federal leadership and assistance in dealing with this type of problem.

26 AIR POLLUTION

Of the six principal new prov isions of these bills, four seem to me high ly desi rable: those which autho rize com pac ts betw een St ates ; detail ing of Feder al personnel to air pol lution con trol agen cies ; Fe deral stud ies , in itiate d by the Surg eon Gen eral , of ma jor pollut ion problem s; and pub lic conferences on such prob lems.

The se four impress me as realist ic acknow ledg ments of two obv ious facts : the i nt er state na ture of m an y air p ollu tion prob lems, inc lud ing those of New Yor k Ci ty, and the avail ab ili ty in the Fed era l Governme nt of tech niques and technician s w'hich no lower governm ental level can hope to ma tch in the nea r future .

The oth er two provide for rep lacement of the time and cos t lim ita tions of the cu rre nt ac t with nor mal ann ual budgeta ry procedures, and for Fed era l gran ts to help St ate and local agenc ies to get more effective con trol programs s tarte d. These I cons ider no t only highly desirab le bu t also urgently necessa ry if ou r State s and citie s are to cope with thi s prob lem before i t becomes intole rab ly cost ly, in money and in human health.

in New York Cit y, citizen com plaints concern ing air pol lution rose from 16,615 in 1960 to 19,534 in 1961. One can wonder how ma ny more tens of tho usands of New Yorkers chose, as mos t people do, to suffer in silence, whether the y though t of the pol lute d air of the ir city as merely an offensive odor, as a cos tly soiler of the ir clothes and pro per ty, or as the hazard to the ir healt h which we increasing ly believe it to be.

All of you hav e heard many times of the famous air pol lution episodes in Don ora , Pa., in 1948, when 20 died, and in London , England in 1952, when 4,000 excess death s were rep ort ed in a single 2-week period .

Bu t the re is now a New' York Ci ty episode, too. Discovered only recent ly by Dr. Leonard Gre enb urg and associates of the cit y health de partm en t throug h comparison of mor ta lit y sta tis tic s with air pollution levels, some 200 excess death s among New Yorkers betw een Novemb er 15 and 24, 1960, 1,953 are now at tr ib ut ed to the exception ally high pollution levels which prevai led at th at time .

How ma ny more such episodes the re ma y hav e been, in New York and in our o the r great i ndust ria l cities, we shal l pro bab lv never know. What we can be sure of is th at the re wall be more and worse in the future , unless our cities and State s and the Federal G overn me nt wrork together on this p roblem in the ways th at these id ent ica l bills a uthorize.

A good exam ple of the kind of problem which no cit y or St ate can effec tively tack le alone is th at of po llu tant emiss ions lrom mo tor vehicles, which of course cross those do tte d lines on our maps as freely as t he wind . I was g rea tly im pressed b y the voluminous r epor t on t he possible h eal th effects of such em issions which the Pub lic He al th Service has ju st sub mi tted to the Congress, in compliance with the Schenck Act . Fo r his ini tia tiv e in thi s mat ter, Mr. Chairma n, I shoud like to congratula te our dis tinguished colleague from Ohio, who I know' is a most active mem ber of your com mit tee.

Even tho ugh the Sc henck rep or t cove rs only a good beginning of the necessary researc h in this area, it is alr eady ev ide nt—as the Surgeon Gen era l’s let ter o f t rans mitt al m akes c lear—th at automobile emissions do p roduce effects on hum an beings. There is also a c lear im plication here th at air pollu tion is pro bably rel ate d to such serious res pir ato ry diseases as chronic bronchitis , emphy sem a, and lung cancer. To conclude my point No. 1, we in New York Ci ty are going to need the

AIR POLLUTION 27

kind of Federal cooperation which these new bills provide for, in order to follow up the preliminary findings of the Schenck report and to implement these and other research results with remedial action.

My second point—and I shall make this brief—has to do with air pollution’s high cost to gardeners and small farmers. Most people are surprised to learn tha t there are still about 50 small farms within New York’s city limits, mostly in Staten Island. And we have hundreds of thousands of residents in my area of Queens who pride their home gardens. Incidentally, not too long ago, Staten Island was famous for its strawberry crops and there were scores of prosperous truck farmers and flower growers there. Even more than population pressures, the air pollution from factories and other sources has driven most of them out of business and made the livelihood of the small remainder precarious indeed.

An article by John G. Mitchell in this May’s issue of Country Beautiful dramatizes thei r plight :

Year afte r year, primroses and pansies withered. Pine trees lost thei r needles. When the squash is wet, that sulfur comes down and burns them to ashes.

Stunts the apples, too.These are quotes from Staten Islanders not quite ready to give up.

These effects occur not only in the cities b ut extend out considerable distances from them, and affect the vegetable truck crops which are important food sources to all of us. In his article, Air. Mitchell points out tha t near Bordentown, N.J., 20 miles downwind from Philadelphia, the spinach and endive enterprises are threatened by ozone pollution. When he reminded one of the small farmers he interviewed tha t many millions of dollars have been paid out throughout the country by offending industries in damages for ruined crops, he got this answer:

I never took a penny from th em and I never will. All I wan t is to grow things the way God intended. In the good fresh air.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, my remarks were concerned primarily with the danger to the urban dweller of air pollution. But air pollution affects the rural dweller who want to keep on growing things in the good fresh air, too. It is not simply a New York City problem but a national problem. I urge early favorable action on these bills so tha t the fight against air pollution may go on.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Foster, for your appearance in behalf of Congressman Halpern and a very fine statement.

Mr. Foster. Thank you.Mr. Roberts. There may be some comments or questions.Mr. O’Brien?Mr. O’Brien. I have no comment, except there is one sentence in

the Congressman’s statem ent that I consider rather significant. After endorsing the bill, he says he considers these steps not only highly desirable, but also urgently necessary in our States and cities if we are to cope with this problem before it becomes intolerably costly in money and in human health.

1 assume the Congressman feels that while this might involve the spending of additional money, which in the aggregate is often criticized by people, tha t this expenditure of Federal money actually would result in a saving in the long run because if the cities and the States were to handle tha t separately, in the first place, they could not, and in the second place, it would cost them a good deal more money.

28 AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Foster. Tha t is exactly how he feels, Mr. O’Brien.Mr. Roberts. Mr. Schenck?Mr. Schenck. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Foster and to our good

friend and colleague, Congressman Halpern, for this splendid sta tement. I would also like to agree with my colleague, Mr. O’Brien, from New York, tha t the question of loss in human health and also in vegetation and damage on many materials—paint, metal, rubber, chrome plating, and so on, is actually costly just in monetary loss, figured, I believe, at $7.5 billion a year. It was pointed out, I think, in some of our reports tha t in the annual loss in agricultural products alone in some of the counties of California, it was in excess of $3 million.

I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, tha t in a recent inspection tr ip I made to the Taft Engineering Center in Cincinnati, where a great deal of this research is being done and where they are receiving air samples from all over the United States, including them in their research, it was conclusively shown there tha t the normal amounts of automotive exhaust gases in air, especially after it was irradiated by sunlight, are tremendously destructive to any plants ’ leaves and vegetation, and also various other materials tha t I mentioned, in addition to the bad effect on human health, particular ly in the respiratory tract. So I am delighted to have this fine s tatement from our colleague, Congressman Halpern, and I sincerely hope tha t this broad program of research can go forward to enable local communities to take advantage of the technical information gained, and thus determine the appropriate procedures to solve these problems.

Mr. Foster. I might add tha t Mr. Halpern in Queens lives in an apartm ent project called Kew Gardens, but they have not been able to grow a garden there in years because of the pollution problem.

Mr. Schenck. I would like to suggest to my colleague, Congressman Halpern, and you, Mr. Foster, tha t if you have an opportunity to visit the corner of L and First Streets NW., here in the city of Washington, there is an air-sampling station located there which takes out of the air the normal air, whatever it may be, at various times of the day. There are some seven or eight automatic analyzers inside this station which are continuously determining and recording the amounts of the various kinds of gases in the air. This is recorded on permanent tape. This Washington station is one of eight centers nationwide. The tapes are forwarded into Cincinnati and put into a computer, through which a comparison nationwide can be made. I think you will find tha t this is a very interesting demonstration, and also extremely important in this overall study of air pollution.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Roberts. I thank the gentleman from Ohio.Mr. Nelsen?Mr. Nelsen. No questions; th ank you.Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Foster.Mr. F oster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Mr. Roberts. Do we have any other statements, Mr. Williamson,

any other witnesses who represent Members of Congress?Mr. Williamson. I ’ve had no other requests. I do not believe

there are any more Congressmen in the audience at this time.Mr. Roberts. This will conclude the hearing a t this point, subject

to further call by the Chair, which will be announced.(Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

ADDITIONAL HEARING HELD BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND SAFETY

OF THECOMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND

FOREIGN COMMERCE IN

BIRMINGHAM, ALA.,ON

NOVEMBER 27, 1961

29

88470—«2----- B

AIR POLLUTION

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1961

U.S. H ouse of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s ,S ubcom m it te e on H ea lt h an d Sa fe ty of th e

C om m it te e on I n terst a te an d F oreig n C om mer ce ,Birmingham, Ala .

The sub comm itte e me t at 9 a.m ., pu rsua nt to notice, in 109th Ev acua tio n Ho spita l, Un ive rsi ty Medical Ce nte r, Bir mingham , Ala., Hon. Ke nn eth A. Ro berts (chairm an of the sub com mit tee) pres iding.

Mr. R o b er ts . The sub com mittee will please be in orde r. Le t me say a t the o ut se t th at it is a d ist inct plea sure to be h ere today with my friends and neighbors in Jeffe rson Co unty. We hav e been try ing to get this group of Congressmen to Ala bam a for some time, and this gu \e us the best op po rtu ni ty to come to Ala bam a. We are ha pp y to be in the di str ic t so ably rep resent ed by Mr. Huddles ton . We are del igh ted to have him with us in this mee ting .

Fi rs t of all I would like to int rod uce the members of the He al th and Saf ety Subco mm itte e of the In te rs ta te and Foreign Com merce Comm ittee.

Fi rst , on my rig ht is Mr. Rho des of Pen nsy lvania , who has been a Me mb er of C ongress since 1948. He is espec ially intere ste d in health legislat ion and is au thor of several im po rta nt h ea lth bills.

Ne xt is Mr. O’Brien of New York , a dist inguish ed new spa perman and Con gressman since 1952. I suppose Mr . O’Brien had more to do with the admissio n of Ala ska and Hawaii than any othe r Me mb er of the House.

Then on m y left is M r. Schenck of Ohio, who is the rank ing mino rity Re presen tat ive on the sub com mittee . He was elected to Congress in 1951. He is especial ly int ere ste d in safety , bo th highwa y safet y and air safe ty, and air pol lution. He is au thor of the bill under which the Surg eon Gen eral is ma kin g a stu dy of the effect of a utomo bile fuels on health. Mr . Schenck and I ha ve served togeth er for ab ou t 6 yea rs as members of the Special Sub com mittee on Traffic Safety . In fac t, we are the only two rem ain ing mem bers of th at orig inal subco mm itte e th at was set up sev era l yea rs ago.

Ne xt is Mr. Nelsen of Minn eso ta who was elec ted to Congress in 1958. He has been act ive in the affairs of the sub com mittee. He is well know n in Alaba ma and na tiona lly as formerly Ad minist rat or of the Ru ra l Ele ctr ific ation Au tho rity. We are very ha pp y to be here . We feel th at Jeffe rson Co un ty cer tainly should be co ng ratulat ed for havin g se t up a stud y and adv isory Comm itte e on air pol lution through the Bir mingham Ch am ber of Commerce, and the Jeffe rson Co un ty Bo ard of He al th . We feel this is a grea t forward ste p, and it will do much to at ta ck t he a ir pollution problem in the B irm ing ham area.

31

32 AIR POLLUTION

1 also want to than k the press, radio, and TV sta tio ns for the ir interest in this im porta nt prob lem and for the ir coop erat ion.

This is one of a series of hearings planne d by the sub com mittee in conn ection with our stu dy of air pollution.

We hav e been tak ing air pollution mea surements in this country for 25 yea rs or so b ut since World Wa r TT the re has been an increasing intere st in this problem.

Some of thi s increased intere st, no doubt, resu lted from the wide publicity given a series of spect acu lar disa ster s at tr ib ut ed to air pollution .

In 1948, 20 people died and hal f the pop ula tion of the litt le town of Donora, Pa ., beca me ill as a result of smog-poisoned air. Tn 1950 there was a ma jor disaster in Mexico . Then, on Dec ember 5, 1952, the city of London was stricken by a blanke t of smog which tur ned day into night. Med ical experts say th at between 4,000 and 5,000 people died the re in 1 week from brea thing the smog-poisoned air.

As a res ult of the growing concern abo ut this, Congress in 1955 set up a 5-year pro gram giving the U.S. Pub lic Health Service au thor ity to stu dy the prob lem. The Surgeon General was authorized to:

1. Pre par e and recommend appro priat e resea rch program s.2. Col lect and diss eminate info rma tion on air pollution.3. Co nduct techn ical research and sup po rt research by g ran ts- in-aid

or contr ac ts with both publ ic and pr ivate agencies.4. On the req ues t of local or St ate agencies to make inv est iga tions

of specif ic air pollution problems.5. Pre pare and pub lish researc h rep ort s.A lim it of $5 million a year was set on app rop ria tions. In 1959,

the p rogram was exte nded to Ju ne 30, 1964. Short ly before Congress adjourned in Sep tember, the Senate passed a bill extend ing the program 2 yea rs and giving the Surgeon General au thor ity to go into any localit y and con duc t publ ic hearings on air pollu tion prob lems of more than local significance. Under exis ting law, public hearings are held only at the req uest of State or local agencies. This extension of author ity was reques ted in 1960 by the prev ious adminis tra tion and the req uest renew ed this yea r by the newly app oin ted Secre tary of the Dep ar tm en t of H ealth , Ed ucation , and Welfare.

I hav e int rod uced a bill to make the Fed era l researc h pro gram perm anent and author izin g the appro priat ion of wh ate ver fun ds the Congress ma y tliink necessary .

The sub com mittee is intere sted in ge tting sen timent a t the “grassroots ” on this before we tak e act ion at the next session of Congress.

I t is general ly agreed, I th ink , th at the act ual con trol of air pol lution is a local resp ons ibil ity. We could no t set up and enforce an ab ate me nt program at long ran ge from Wa shin gton.

I migh t say a t this point in thi s st at em en t th at i t is m y convic tion , and I th ink i t is the co nvictio n of som e m embers of the sub comm itte e, th at the re is no t enou gh money in the Federal Tr easu ry for us to go into eve ry local sit ua tio n and do the whole job . We feel th at the local com muniti es mus t be given enc ourage ment and mu st be given wh ate ver guidance and inform ation th a t we can get from widespread research . But prima rily , unles s there is an in te rs ta te problem such as you would have in a city like St. Louis and Eas t St. Louis, th at prima rily this m at te r is up to the local com muniti es and people with civic pride are going to try to do the job.

AIR POLLUTION 33

At the sam e t ime the re are man y w ays in which the Fede ral G overn me nt can help , if it is fel t such help is necessa ry and des irab le.

Althou gh a lo t of tim e and money has been spen t on rese arch and inv est iga tions in rec en t years, there is s till a whole lo t we do n ot know ab ou t the problem. Most quest ion s ab ou t the effects of pol lute d air on human he al th have no t been answered bu t evidence linkin g air pol lution wi th lun g cancer and othe r resp ira to ry d iseases increases dai ly as research progresses .

Ge tti ng th e answers we need to m ove inte llig ent ly calls for e xtensive research.

Researc h is needed to help local com muniti es and indu st ry tak e necessary ste ps to con tro l air pol lution. With ou t the fac ts, we are grop ing in the da rk. We tak e the chance of wastin g a lot of money wi tho ut doing a ny good.

Research is a long and cos tly ope rat ion . Res earc h takes no t only money, but man pow er and facil ities. Ma npo wer is limited . In this situa tio n, the Fed era l Gover nm ent can do the job che ape r than if the State s and local com muniti es go it alone . Duplicat ion can be elim ina ted by a Feder al program. Infor ma tion can be collected and dis sem ina ted more efficiently and rap idly th at way.

B at it cos ts money. With the grea t dem and s on the Federa l Government for tax dollars, is this program worthwhile?

Shou ld the pro gram be co ntinued? Shou ld it be ex panded? Should the Surgeon Gen eral be given add itio nal au tho rity?

These are the que stio ns th at Congress will have to answ er next session. And the Congress is look ing to this sub com mittee to make recommen dations .

It is to ge t you r counsel and a dvice—the counsel and advice of those who pay the bills—th at we are here today.

Scienti fic s tud ies leav e no doubt th at a ir pollu tion is a se rious menace to hea lth. There is no doub t th at air pollution each year des troys crops wor th millions of dollars. Stati sti cs are tric ky but we are told that the ann ual cost of air pollution to the Un ited States is at least $7.5 billion.

Rec ently Dr. Roger Mitchell of the U niv ers ity of Colo rado Medical School said th at in 1960 at lea st 60,000 people died in this co un try from lung a ilm ent s which pro bab ly were caused by bre ath ing pollu ted air.

We are concern ed, and rig htly so, about the rad ioactiv e fallout from nuc lear bom b tes ts.

Bu t in a speech in Cin cinnat i the othe r day , Dr. H. E. Lan dsberg, a We ather Bu rea u scient ist, said air pollution is more of a prob lem tha n rad ioactiv e fall out .

Dec laring th at city air is becoming increasingly more pol luted, he said it is app alling th at we are doing “no thi ng to speak of about it .”

As sta ted earl ier, thi s sub com mittee has been intere sted in air pol lution for man y yea rs. We hav e been intere sted especial ly in mo tor vehicle exhaust fumes. In this , our colleague from Ohio, Mr . Schenck , the senior Rep ubl ican mem ber of the sub com mittee , has tak en the lead.

In 1956, I was appointed cha irman of the Special Sub com mittee on Traffic Safety, which began a f ar-reaching stud y of highway s afe ty, which is now bein g carr ied on by the Sub com mittee on He alth and Saf ety . Mr . Schenck was a very act ive member of the spec ial sub com mit tee .

34 AIR POLLUTION

Du ring some very intere sting and pro ductiv e hearings in Ohio, Mr . Schenck pre sen ted to the sub com mittee as a witness Dr . Ro bert E. Zipf, then pre sident of the Ohio St ate Coron ers’ Association. Dr . Zipf urged th at a special stu dy b e mad e of auto mobile exhaust fumes. Mr . Schenck went into this very tho rou ghly and aft er a stu dy of ava ilab le da ta on the s ubjec t in 1957 int rod uce d a bill to pro hib it the use in comm erce of any mo tor vehicle which disc harg ed unburne d hydro car bons in an am ount found by the Surgeon Gen eral to be dangerous to human health. In hea ring s held on this bill in 1958 leading exp erts in the field were hea rd.

In 1959, the sub com mittee rep ort ed Mr . Sch enck’s b ill to the full com mit tee. How ever , the full com mit tee was unwilling to go as far as prop osed in the bill wi tho ut more evidence. As a res ult a comprom ise bill was worked ou t to dir ect the Surgeon Gen eral to make a 2-year s tudy and rep or t to Congress on the effect on human healt h of mo tor veh icle exhaust fumes. We are awaiti ng th e Surgeon Ge neral ’s repo rt wi th a grea t deal of int ere st.

I t is general ly agreed th at mo tor vehicle fumes are the prin cipal cause of the smog which has plagued the Los Angeles are a and oth er cities for some time.

Con trolling the e xhaust fumes may be ra th er dif ficult and expensive bu t if it is shown th at this is needed to prote ct hum an health, 1 am sure our people will gladly pay the bill.

The industry, however, has developed an inexpens ive ins tal lat ion which will elim inate crankc ase blow by, which accoun ts for from 20 to 40 per cent of the to tal of unburned hyd rocarbons disc harged into the air by automobi le engines. These ins tal lat ion s, which feed the blowby gases back into the cyli nders to be burned, are sta nd ard equip me nt on all 1961 cars sold in Cal ifornia.

In 1960 this sub com mittee held hearings to ask the ma nufac tur ers why thes e ins tal lat ion s shou ld not be made on all new automobil es sold anywhe re in the cou ntry. The Secre tary of the De pa rtm en t of He alth, Education , and Welfare endo rsed the idea and reco mmended th at the ind ustry do this vo lun tar ily . The presen t Secre tar y also is urg ing the ind us try to do this.

Unle ss acti on is take n volun tar ily , the re is going to be a move m ade in Congress to requ ire th at th ese blowby devices be bui lt into all new cars . You will recall th at Congress passed my ref rig era tor door latch bill a few yea rs back when we were unable to get the ind ust ry to develop and install doors which would no t be de ath tra ps for you ngsters. Th at law has worked ou t wi tho ut causing und ue ha rd ship in the ind ust ry.

I hav e tak en a great deal of tim e in thi s opening sta temen t bu t I thou gh t my friends and co ns titue nts here shou ld know som eth ing ab ou t ou r problem s and why we are in Birmin gha m today.

I am sure the tes tim ony which will be rece ived here toda y will be very inform ative a nd helpful. We cannot, of course , hear all of those intere ste d in the limited tim e at our dispo sal bu t on beh alf of the sub com mittee I inv ite any one int ere ste d to wri te me. You r views and sugg estio ns will be help ful.

I would like at thi s tim e, with ou t o bjectio n, to place in the record a r6sum6 which gives the stat us of the Fed era l air pol lution program at the prese nt time .

AIR POLLUTION 35(The sta temen t refe rred to follows:)

Sta tu s o f F ed er a l Air P o llu tio n C o ntrol P ro gr am

Estab lished by Public Law 159, 84th Congress (approved July 14, 1955), which authorized the Surgeon General to—(1) Prepare and recommend research programs designed to reduce or elimina te air pollution .(2) Collect, publish, and disseminate information.(3) Conduct technical research in th e Public Hea lth Service and to su pport by grants or con trac t t echnical research by privat e or public agencies.(4) To investiga te and make surveys, on the request of Sta te or local governmen t agency, of air pollution problems.

The program was autho rized for 5 years and appropr iations limited to $5 million a year.In 1959 the act was extended 4 years, making expira tion date Jun e 30, 1964.

p e n d in g leg is la tio n

S. 455 (passed by the Senate September 20, 1961). This would—Exte nd program 2 years.Reta in $5 million annu al ceiling on appropriation s.Authorize Surgeon General, on his own initi ative, as well as on request by Sta te or local agency, to hold public hearings on a problem “if, in his judgment, such problem may affect or be of concern to communities in various par ts of the Nat ion or may affect any community or communities in a S tate o ther tha n th at in which the ma tte r causing or contr ibut ing to the pollution orig inated.”

H.R. 3082 (by Mr. Roberts) would make Federa l research program perm anent and remove ceiling on annu al appropriat ions.Other pending bills on air pollution: H.R . 747 by Mr. McDonough; H.R. 2948 by Mr. Shelley; H.R . 3577 by Mr. Roosevelt; H.R . 9347 by Mr. Halpern; and H.R. 9352 by Mr. Corman.Mr. R obe rts . I would like espec ially to call at tent ion to the bill

which passed the Senat e in the las t session, Septemb er 20, 1961, S. 455.

Briefly, thi s bill would exte nd the pre sen t pro gram 2 yea rs. It would ret ain the $5 million annual ceiling on appro pri ations. It would authorize the Surgeon General on his own ini tia tiv e, as well as on req uest by St ate and local agency, to hold publ ic hearings on a problem “if, in his jud gm ent, such problem ma y affect or be of concern to com muniti es in var ious pa rts of the Na tio n or may affec t any comm unity in the St ate oth er tha n th at in which the m at te r causing or contr ibuti ng to the pollution or igi na ted .”

On the Hou se side I have int rod uce d H. R. 3083 which would make this researc h pro gram perm anen t and would remove the ceiling on ann ual appro priat ion s leaving th at m at te r up to the Appro priations Comm ittee.

There are othe r bills pen ding in the House on this mat ter .Tha t conc ludes the opening sta temen t. With leav e of the com

mi ttee I would like to file S. 455 and H.R. 3083 in the record at thi s time .(The bills mentio ned , H. R. 3083 and S. 455 may be found on p.

3 and p. 9, r espect ive ly.)Mr . R obe rts . Our firs t witn ess tod ay is H on. George Huddles ton ,

Con gressman in this distr ict . George, we are del igh ted to be in you r di str ic t tod ay. We are glad to have you. You may proceed as you desire .

36 AIR POLLUTION

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE HUDDLESTON, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. H uddleston . Th an k you, Mr . Chairm an. It would be pre sum ptu ous on my part, in view of t he sp lend id ar ray of witnesses th at Birmin gha m and Jeffe rson Co un ty have prepar ed to pre sen t to the com mit tee t his m orning, for me to tak e up any prolonged tim e to give a s ta temen t dealing with thi s very tech nical and cruc ial prob lem.

We in Birmingham are very ha pp y to have the com mittee with us thi s morning. We feel a great deal of good can come from this committee. M an y of our people here in the com mu nity have spen t long hours in st udyin g the proble ms which our a ir pol lution in Birmin gham has created. " The var ious witnesses will go into th at in more det ail as they appear before the com mit tee.

As the Congres sman from this grea t indust ria l di str ic t of Jefferson County, I wa nt to personally welcome the com mittee and tell you we are g lad to hav e you with us. We hope t hat y ou will stay with us as long as you can, and we are confident th at a grea t deal of good will come from the facts which will come ou t as the com mittee hea ring progresses.

Th an k you, Mr. Chairm an.Mr. R oberts . Th ank you, Mr . Huddles ton .I believe I will call as the first witness Dr. Prindle, of the U.S.

Pub lic He alth Service, who will tell us som ething ab ou t the prob lem as he finds it over the cou ntry.

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD A. PRINDLE, DEPUTY CHIEF,DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

Dr. P rindle . Mr. Chairma n, mem bers of the sub com mittee, ladies and gen tlem en, first 1 would like to introdu ce Mr. Jean J. Schueneman, Chie f of our Tech nica l Assistance Branc h, who will also tes tify , by leave of the committ ee, late r.

I wish to introduce myself . T am a regular corps commissioned officer in the Publ ic Health Service, a care er man who has served in the Service for app rox imate ly 10 years, the last four and a half in the air pollu tion field.

Mr. Roberts. Dr. Prindle, will you raise you r voice, please?Dr. P rindle. T have served ove r the last yea r as the De pu ty ( ’hief

of this Division. T att en ded schools in Louisian a, grad ua ted from the H arv ard Medical School in 19 48 , intern ed at th e Columbia Presby ter ian Medical Cente r in New' York Ci ty, ret urne d to Ha rvard as research fellow, joined the Pub lic Health Service, and la te r received my mas ter’s degree in pub lic health at Ha rvard in 19 54 . I join ed the air pollution act ivi ties app rox imate ly four and a half yea rs ago as the epidemiologis t for the the n exis ting air pol lutio n medical pro gram , subse quent ly became its Chief, and when it was com bined w ith the engineering pro gram in the pres ent Division, acq uired my present sta tus .

It has been almost 2 years since we have had the op po rtu ni ty of presen ting to you our act ivi ties, and a good deal has happen ed. I plan tod ay only to hi t the hig hlig hts very brief ly to give you some idea of wha t we have been doing, and go into grea ter detail at a lat er time if t he com mit tee desires.

AIR POLLUTION 37

I think perhaps the most significant thing which has happened since we met last was the recognition by the Public Health Service of the importance of this activity and the combination thereby of what was then existing as the air pollution engineering program and the air pollution medical program, two separa te branches within the Service, to form a structu re of greater organizational significance: A Division of Air Pollution. This combined these two activities, and instead formed five branches which more nearly corresponded to the kind of activities which we were conducting. These branches include the Field Studies Branch, which undertakes research in the field of problems in various cities and areas; the Technical Assistance Branch, of which I will speak later; the Laboratory of Medical and Biological Sciences, which conducts laboratory research in the biological effects of air pollution, not only on humans but animals; the Laboratory of Engineering and Physical Sciences, which conducts the chemical, engineering, and instrumenta l research, and a new Branch of Research Grants and Training, of which I will speak later also.

We have continued to accent research as our major activi ty and have continued to expend a budget which is primarily in the research area. We have continued a very close relationship with other Federal agencies. As you gentlemen recall, it was originally planned that the Public Health Service would act as the focus for all Federal activities, and we still continue to work with other agencies through contracts and other arrangements with such groups as the Weather Bureau, the Bureau of Mines, and the Bureau of Standards.

Most recently, in the reorganization of tin* Public Health Service, which has recognized more and more the environmental problems, of which air pollution is one, we have acquired authority for research grants. Actually our program has always had this authority under Public Law 159, but administratively we have transferred the funds to the National Insti tutes of Health for handling. This has now been changed back to our bureau and we now program and work directly in the research grants field, and in the training field. These latte r grants are for fellowships and traineeships. Thus we have this new Branch of which T spoke.

Our major activity for the past year has really been the acquisition of an appropriate staff and facilities to carry out the charges which the subcommittee has placed upon us, specifically in relation to Public Law 493 on automobile emissions.

I especially wish to call your attention to the fact that, particularly in our Cincinnati laboratories at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, this expansion has required us to lease additional facilities and other buildings to expand our activities. It would be our hope that this subcommittee at some appropriate time might visit us there and see the kind of work that is being done.

Now, specifically in regard to our program activities over the past few months, we have continued, of course, our national air sampling network. This, as you will recall, is a series of stations, actually there are 147 in urban communities, 36 in rural, in which samples of the air are obtained with the cooperation of, and, in coordination with, the city and local governments to assay over a long period of time the changes and fluctuations and degree of air pollution by area.

At this point we have passed the 30,000 mark, and the number of samples tha t have been collected in this rather monumental task

38 AIR POLLUTION

has burde ned us with a good dea l of pap erw ork . We are now a ttem pti ng to ge t ou t a pub lica tion bringing up to da te the prev ious publicat ion of thes e samples . I might acid th at this netwo rk has mo st rec ently also been invo lved in assis ting our Div ision of Ra diological He alt h in the pre sen t fal lou t prob lem, since the na ture of our a ir s amplin g is pecul iarl y adap tab le to the p roblem s of ra dio act ive iodine and similar fal lou t pro ducts .In researc h in meteoro logy , I thi nk the most sign ificant develop ment has been th at of a fore casting network which cove rs all the State s eas t of the Rockies. With this network it is possib le to at te m pt to pre dic t inversion weath er phe nom ena ove r areas of the co un try to ale rt cities , loca litie s, and indust ries to the po ten tia l buildup of an air pol lutio n prob lem. Many local areas and ind ustrie s ma ke use of this fore casting network in order to ascertain the changes of air pol lution th at res ult from the effects of weather. At the sam e time, we hav e been con duc ting a good deal of researc h at tempt ing to asc erta in the trajectory, or the lines upon which po llu tant s are dispersed, and hav e deve loped a specific bal loon know n as the tet roon , which is being used to follow these po llu tant s over long areas by rada r or visu al observatio n. Also, we hav e formed a prec ipi tat ion network which measure s rain fall and the po llu tan ts th at are washed ou t the reb y, pa rti al ly in an at te m pt to ascertain how im po rtan t r ainfall or snow may be in help ing cleanse the air.We have continued work on con trol devices, and working with the cit y of New York, have been work ing on the problem of inc ine rato rs in ap ar tm en t houses and similar area s, and hav e deve loped now an incineration mechanism which will conside rably a llev iate th e s itu ati on . Working with the Bureau of Mine s, we have con ducted conside rabl e researc h on the removal of sul fur dioxide, a very common , alm ost worldwide po llu tan t, a problem which is ext rem ely severe in that- ord ina ry remova l methods have not been successful in ge tting rid of thi s gas. We have been working with the Burea u of Mines on ab sorben ts which mig ht remove thi s and which migh t be economical and feasib le of app lica tion .

Similar ly, in our ins tru me nt rese arch, our ma in emp has is has been on the bui lding of a sim ula tor , in thi s case one to sim ula te drivin g pa tte rns so th at we can conduct , in the lab orato ry , rese arch tes ts on automobi le driving pa tte rns th at would give us the type of exhau st th at might be found from a tax i, from an automobi le, or from a del ive ry tru ck , under various circ umstance s. Our chem ical research has been prima rily on complex photo chem ist ry, at tempt ing to be tte r ide nti fy those problems th at arise as a result of po llu tant s mixing in the atm osp here, being act ed on by the sunlight, and changing their cha rac ter isti cs.Our Field Studies Branc h has been mo st act ive . I th ink mo st of you gen tlem en are aware of the fac t th at we conduct ed a ra th er m ajo r stu dy in Nas hvi lle app rox imate ly 3 yea rs ago. Re ports from th at hav e come o ut now in the l as t coup le of years, and specif ically I think I should mentio n one which is a stu dy of anthra cos is, which is the degree of blacken ing found in the lung s of peop le when an autop sy is con duc ted . Thi s blac ken ing is at tr ib ut ed to the inh ala tion of soot . Thi s stu dy , using auto psies from the Va nderb ilt Ho spi tal , essentia lly proved wha t one would surm ise, bu t it is necessa ry to do this typ e of “proo f” research: th at the degree of this anthraco sis was direct ly

AIR POLLUTION 39

correlated with the length of residence of the people in the air-polluted areas, tha t those who lived outside the area did not have this degree of blackening, and hence one can make an actual measure of the amount of time an individual had lived in the polluted area. It serves somewhat as an index of the degree of exposure of an individual at death.

At the same time, in these studies, we were able to show tha t patients who had asthma had more attacks of their asthma if they lived in certain areas of Nashville in which the air pollution was high. The air pollution in this case was measured as sulfur dioxide, and in those areas with high sulfur dioxide levels over a period of a year, those patients who had asthma had more attacks than those living in cleaner areas. The same was true on a daily variation basis: those days in which the sulfur dioxide was high were the days on which there were more attacks of asthma.

A group of industrial workers under the direction ot Dr. Dohan of the Radio Corp, of America has done studies recently, reporting on absenteeism in an industry having a series of plants manufacturing electronic products in various cities. He was able to show tha t absences due to respiratory disease in these cities was directly correlated with the amount of sulfates present in the air. This work is continuing now.

Most recently, in an area of Pennsylvania, in which we were fortunate enough to find two small villages quite close together, and in which pollution was present in one village, we conducted extensive pulmonary function tests utilizing rather exotic, in some cases, devices, and were able to show tha t the people living in the polluted town had a higher degree of airway resistance, or pulmonary resistance, which in a sense is a measure of the difficulty of breathing against this air pollution.

To add to the chairman’s list of acute disasters, Dr. Leonard Greenberg of New York City has reported tha t he has evidence of 200 excess deaths occurring in a period of approximately 10 days in New York City as a result of a smog episode some years back.

Finally, statistical research along these lines has shown tha t the disease known as emphysema, which is a very debilitating chronic pulmonary disease, often leading to death, and certainly leading to a considerable amount of disablement, has increased four to five times in the past 10 years on a nationwide basis. It is also obvious t hat i t is highest in the large cities, and again on this basis perhaps connected with the air pollution problem.

In our biological research in the labora tory we have conducted work on vegetation, and have been able to show that there are several types of damage tha t can be attr ibuted to the automobile exhaust type of air pollution. We are now attempting to define more specifically these types of damage so tha t they can be b etter cataloged on a nationwide basis. At the same time we have been exposing animals to automobile exhaust and have been able to show t ha t there is no question tha t with exposure to levels approximately twice that found in Los Angeles the animals have more difficulty breathing, tha t their activi ty is tremendously diminished and tha t changes in their enzymes and biological struc ture, the exact meaning of which we do not know, are definitely abnormal.

40 AIR POLLUTION

I t is i nte res tin g to not e th at the exhaust which has been irr ad ia ted by arti ficial sunlight is more dam aging by thes e measures than non- irr ad iated exhaus t.Dr . Paul Ko tin , of the Un ive rsi ty of South ern Cal ifornia, has been con ducting work in rel ati on to cancer and the prob ab ili ty of au tomobile exhaust con tribu tin g to this . As you g ent lem en ma y r ecal l, some years back he rep ort ed th at exposure of animals to a mixt ure of ozonized gasol ine, which is som ewh at like arti ficial smog, produced tum ors in the lungs. The se tum ors were no t real cancers, bu t the y were real tum ors in the mouse lungs. Most rec en tly he has been expo sing his animals firs t to the v irus of influenza . 2Vfter the ir rec overy he has exposed them to the autom obile exhaust or ozonized gasoline, and these have deve loped tru e squ amous cancers, which are sim ilar to those found in huma n beings in lun g can cer cases.In order to pursue this fur the r, then , and under the autho rization of Public Law 493, we have developed several colonies of anim als in Los zVngeles and in De tro it in which we ha ve animals in various area s, including lite ral ly in the cen ter of the freew ay, which are exposed to the atm osphere presen t in that area , and anoth er ma tch ed gro up r ight alongside who are receiving clean, washed, filte red air for com pari son purposes.In the canc er field I might mention specifically th at we have been deve loping ana lyt ic techniques for the measu rem ent of cer tain ca rcinogens, as the y are called , partic ula rly the one known as 3,4-benz pyrene, which we believe may be an index sub stance of this typ e of cancer-causing agent.We have sampled the air of 103 c ities and 29 nonurba n areas in the Unit ed Sta tes . This com pound was demo ns tra ted in all areas. The lowest levels general ly occurre d in western cities, the highest levels in eas tern and midw estern sections of the coun try . Levels for citie s averaged 16 times those found in nonurba n area s. The levels of indiv idual cities var ied conside rably, rangin g from as low as those observed in non urb an area s to 150 time s as grea t. In addit ion , in an especially inte nsiv e stu dy of nine sep ara ted c ities , it was observed th at 3,4-benzpyrene in the air var ied by season, being up to 20 times high er in the No vemb er- Jan uary period tha n in the sum mer mo nth s. It was est imated the average qu an tit y of ben zpy rene inhaled by persons exposed for a year ranged from one-t en th of a mic rogram in a State fores t to 150 micrograms in one city .By comparison it is est imate d th at a perso n smoking one pack of cigare ttes dai ly for a year mig ht be exposed to 60 mic rograms, or halfway in betw een thes e two figures. Thus, a person brea thing the air of some cities ove r a ye ar ’s t ime might inha le as much ben zpyrene as from smoking two packs of cig are ttes daily .Now, in rega rd to auto mobile exhaus t rese arch specifically , aside from carb on monoxide, the othe r po llu tan t emissions from the au to mobile include hydro car bons and oxides of nitr oge n, which rea ct photoch emical ly in the atm osp here to produce the eye irr ita tin g, vegetation dam aging, vis abilit v redu cing smog. This occurs in va rious cities throughout the U nited State s, and c anno t now be c onsid ered uniq ue to Los Angeles. Efforts by indu str y and Gover nm ent hav e been devoted to the con trol of cons tituents of automobi le emiss ions which have been show n to be asso ciated wi th these typ es of smog. rPhe gre ate r pa il of th is effort has been directed tow ard redu cing

AIR POLLUTION 41

hydrocarbon emissions. Gasoline powered vehicles have a number of unclosed vents through which such pollutants can escape to the atmosphere; namely, the exhaust pipe, carburetor vent, the gas tank vent, and crankcase vent. Except under certain conditions hydrocarbon emissions by direct evaporation from the system constitute a relatively minor portion of the total. The bulk of the hydrocarbon emissions from the automobile come from the engine exhaust. Several devices are currently under development which would make more complete the combustion initiated in the engine with the aim of converting the hydrocarbons in the exhaust stream into carbon dioxide and water

There are two types of afterburners, that which promotes oxidation of the pollutants by contact with catalysts and those which oxidize by direct combustion. One type of catalytic unit operates in a relatively low tempera ture range, and while it can effect a reduction in the hydrocarbon in the exhaust, has no effect on carbon monoxide. Another type employs a high tempera ture catalyst and is generally effective in removing carbon monoxide as well. All these afterburners require several minutes of engine operation before the cata lyst reaches the required temperature. Therefore, they have the drawback tha t since many automobile trips are rather short in duration, these burners are not efficient over the first few minutes and, therefore, not solving the problem during the first few minutes of operation. The effectiveness of these catalysts is also decreased because they become poisoned by the lead and other compounds added. These factors combine to reduce the efficiency of a catalytic afterburner. At the present state of development it appears possible to obtain an efficiency of approximately 70-80 percent removal for about 12,000 miles of car operation. Large scale production of such afterburners involves solution of engine problems, including miniaturization and selection of durable materials. There arc also odor problems associated with these.

The direct flame afterburner is simple in principle, but the design of an effective device is complicated by the extremely variable conditions of the exhaust itself. One device under development provides rather precise heat conservation and the control of auxiliary air for combustion, and thus avoids the requirement for supplemental fuel. Others require addition of a certain amount of fuel in order to keep them going. These direct flame afterburners become efficient and operate very soon after the engine is sta rted. They have an overall efficiency up to 90 percent in burning hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide and this should not decrease over a period of time. Industry representatives advise us tha t the cost of production of direct flame afterburners will be affected by the difficulties of miniaturization and by the requirement for use of materials capable of withstanding the very high temperatures developed.

Recent realization tha t gas escaping from the crankcase vent, while small in volume, contains hydrocarbons up to one-third of the total emitted from an automobile has focused attention on a means for their control. Simple and inexpensive devices can be installed to vent the “blowby” gas to the intake manifold for combustion in the engine. Such devices will not affect the gases from the exhaust pipe which still remain the principal source of pollution. Unless blowby losses are suppressed, however, the reduction of smog-forming hydrocarbons from the automobile can never be more than 60 percent.

42 AIR POLLUTION

The automobi le indu str y has rep ort ed the cost of blow by devices will vary anywhe re from $5 to $25.

Th e cost of such a device on a car cu rre nt ly in use might be somewh at gre ate r, th at is, on an old car. Inform al advice from indu str y rep resent atives ind ica te a curre nt es tim ate of app rox imate ly $200 for a dir ect flame aft erbu rner ins tal led in a new car, and appro xim ate ly $100 for a ca tal yt ic aft erb urn er. Fo r ins tal lat ion on used cars , all these cost s might be som ewh at higher.

As to our fu ture a ctiv itie s, our acc ent now is less on researc h. This is not exa ctly wh at I wish to say. Inste ad , our acc ent is to add to it more tra ini ng and tech nica l ass istance ac tiv itie s because we now believe th a t in the almost 6 yea rs of ac tiv itie s of the Public He alt h Service, the rese arch has produced enou gh inform ation th at certa in act ivi ties can be carried ou t now, alth ough the solution of some prob lems is as yet to be reached. Therefore, we int end, and hope, to concentra te our act ivi ties more on tra ining of personnel, no t only for ourselves bu t for Sta tes , locali ties, and indu str y, in air pol lution control, and the prov ision of technical ass ista nce to the State s and loca lities. We recognize th at it is the rig ht of the State s and localitie s to con trol the ir air pollution prob lems . We hope th at the y recognize th at this right carr ies with it a respon sib ility.

I wish to point to Mr. Ke nnedy’s m essage on na tu ra l resources in which he accented the sev eri ty of the air pol lution problem and expressed his hop e th a t th at the Fe deral Go vernme nt might exer t the leaders hip nece ssary, thro ugh tra ining and research and thro ugh prov ision of technical and finan cial ass ista nce to the States and local governments to help them in the ir control prob lem.

De pa rtm en t of He alt h, Ed ucati on , and Welfare spokesmen hav e said , similarly, th at it would be the ir hope th at a legislative dev elopment migh t occur, such th at it would enable us to provide financial assi stance through gra nts -in- aid to State s and local governments. We believe, in snort , the ma jor ity of the problem s are soluble and that the State s and localities must tak e the resp ons ibil ity.

Now, since tech nica l assi stance is such a ma jor pa rt of our future plans, and also since some of the act ivi ties of t echnical ass istance b ear on the Birmingham prob lem, if I may, I would like to have Mr. Jean Schuenema n, Chie f of our Technical Assi stance Branc h, spe ak with you briefly on this sub jec t.

Mr. R oberts. Fine , Mr. Schueneman.

STATEMENT OF JEAN J. SCHUENEMAN, CHIEF OF THE TECHNICALASSISTANCE BRANCH, DIVISION OF AIR POLLUTION, PUBLICHEALTH SERVICE

Mr. Schu ene man. My name is Je an Sch ueneman, Chie f of the Tech nica l Ass istance Bra nch of the Div ision of Air Pollu tion of the Publ ic He alt h Service. We hav e our offices at the Ro bert A. Taf t Sa nit ary Engineer ing Cente r in Cincinn ati . We are par t of the general Divi sion of Air Pol lut ion headed by Mr. Ma cKenz ie and Dr. Prin dle . I h ave been with the P ublic H ea lth Service air po llut ion program for 6% yea rs, since the time of its incept ion in 1955. Our principa l mission is to provide technical ass istance and consu lta tion to State a nd local gov ernments , gen era lly upon the ir req uest, in stu dy

AIR POLLUTION 43

and solu tion of air pollut ion problem s through some so rt of gov ern menta l con trol program.

This work is done not only by the tech nical ass ista nce bra nch but, also on occas ion, by rep res en tat ive s of the research groups in the pro gram, who hav e specific and det ailed know ledge or in terest beyond th at ava ilab le in our b ran ch. Th e same typ e of work is also done by regional rep res entat ive s of the Public He alt h Service, who are loca ted in regio nal offices. The one in this pa rti cu lar region is he ad qu ar ter ed in At lanta, Ga. In three of the Pub lic He alth regions, New York Ci ty, Chicago, and San Fra ncisco , we have a specific rep res en tat ive for air pollution purposes. In othe r Pub lic He alt h Serv ice regions personnel assigned principal ly to othe r work do as much as the y can on the air pol lution problem, in pro vid ing ass ista nce to State and local gov ernment.

Our assi stance has tak en several forms. Perhaps the most extensive ac tiv ity has been to make sta tew ide surv eys of air pollu tion pro blems. These survey s are con ducte d to help the States conc erned det erm ine wha t the y air pollution sit ua tio n is, and to help them develop some sort of pro gra m for com bating those problems th at are found. Such survey s have been done in Minneso ta, Pennsylvan ia, Florida , New York, Tennessee, Wa shington , No rth Carol ina , Texas, and Connecticut. We are presen tly conduct ing survey s in Georgia and Sou th Dak ota, and will begin a surve y in Col orado ear ly next yea r. We also assi sted the St ates of Illin ois and Califo rnia in conducti ng survey s, princi pal ly done by those States them selves.

We also ass ist cities and othe r loca l jur isd ict ion s, be they county or otherwise, in con ducting su rve ys of a ir pol lut ion s itu ati on s. The se are done for t he pu rpose of g et tin g a p rel imina ry descr ipt ion of the a ir pollution problem, examin ing the resources availabl e to comb at the problem, examina tion of legisl atio n in existence, and w ith th is i nfo rmation , the n, in cooperatio n wi th the citie s involved, we develop a proposal for fu rth er ac tiv itie s to comb at the air pollu tion problem s th at have been found to exist . Such survey s have been done in Po rt land, Or eg .; S teubenvill e, Ohio; Birmingham , Ala.; Ch arl es ton , S.C .; Lynchburg , V a. ; Elmi ra, N. Y.; Ha mi lto n, Ohio; and Wa shington , D.C .

An oth er type of stu dy th at we con duct coo perat ive ly wi th local agencies or in coo peratio n wi th a St at e agency , is the shor t-t erm demo ns tra tio n air qu al ity me asu rem ent pro gram. These usu ally consist of m eas ure me nt of five gaseous po llu tan ts and m easurem ent of pa rti cu la te p ol lu tan ts for a period of 1 to 3 weeks. Th e purpo se is to demo ns tra te to local personnel the t ech niq ues and e qu ipm ent used for makin g air pollution me asu rem ent s, to get some pre lim ina ry, very limited da ta on the air q ua lity in the com mu nity, and to draw pub lic at tent io n to the exis tence of a ir pol lut ion in th at com mu nity. These stud ies have been done in Fre sno , Calif. ; Tucso n and Phoenix, Ar iz. ; Wa shington , D .C .; Providenc e, R .I .; Atla nt a, Ga .; Ly nchburg, Va .; Bir min gha m, Ala ., and Minneap olis , M inn .

We have also assi sted the c ity and c ounty of Denver in the c onduct of such a survey , and pre sen tly are making plans to conduct such survey s in Ric hmond , Va., and Spart anburg, S.C.

We have pa rti cip ate d in wh at we call ma jor field studies. These are ones in which we seek to deve lop extensive and de tai led informa tion concern ing air pol lution in speci fic com mun ities . These have research

44 AIR POLLUTION

aspects in th at we try to find ou t some basic fac ts th at c an be used, or will be useful nat ion ally, bu t at the sam e time provide info rma tion to the local gov ernmenta l juri sdic tion in the understandin g and contro l of the air pol lution problem. These are complex studie s and could cost as much as a half million dollars. Others are more limited and may cos t around $10,0 00 apiece. Such studies have been con ducte d in Nashvil le, Tenn.; Louisv ille, Ky.; the N ew York-N ew Jer sey me tro po lita n area . In the Washington , D.C ., are a we hav e such a stu dy underway.

A stu dy has rec ent ly been complete d in Jack sonville, Fla ., and rep ort s are being wr itte n. The same is tru e of Berlin, N.H. , where a stu dy has been done and report s are being prep ared. A stud y is pre sen tly in progress on an in ter sta te air pollution prob lem involving Lewiston, Ida ho, and Cla rks ton , Wash . Thi s one is of conside rabl e int ere st because of the adm ini strative aspects of the situa tion as well as the tech nica l aspects. We also pa rti cip ate d, in coo pera tion with the State De pa rtm en t and the In ter na tio na l Jo in t Commission, in the stu dy of air pollu tion in the int ern ati onal De tro it- W inds or area, and also worked with the people in El Paso , Tex. , conc erning their air pollution problems and some of the int ern ational aspects betwe en El Paso and Juare z, Mexico.

State and local governments have difficulty finding time t o rea d the extensive lit erature th at is produced in the air pollution field, and also hav e difficulty even ge ttin g access to this lit eratu re . We there fore provide a tech nical info rma tion service sum marizing new publi cations, so th at info rma tion can be made widely ava ilalde for use of St ate and local agencies. Typ ical examples have inclu ded a com pila tion of all the air pollution analyses th at have been made, and a list ing of air pollution lit erature pub lished in jou rna ls, and elsewhere, in coopera tion with the Air Pol lution Control Associatio n and the Libra ry of Congress. Ab stracts are pre pared and pub lished mon thl y and go ou t w ith t he Jo urna l of the Air Pol lut ion Control Associat ion.

We have rec ently under pre parat ion a com prehensive survey of all the info rma tion ava ilab le on the air pollution aspects of the iron and stee l ind ust ry. Thi s is pre sen tly bein g reviewed by the American Iron & Steel In st itut e and by seve ral ma jor stee l producers . Sim ilar rep ort s on the air pollution aspects of cer tain oth er ind ust ries , includ ing coffee roastin g, cem ent pro duc tion, com bus tion of oil, and com bus tion of coal, are being prepared.

Also, by way of tech nica l info rma tion , we answer lite ral ly scores of let ter s from people of all sor ts: ind ustrial rep res entat ive s, St at e and local government employees, pr iva te citiz ens, Congres smen, and anyone else who asks. We prepar e le tte r repo rts and inform ation on any question in the field of air pol lution th at ma y arise . In view of the lack of tech nica l knowledge som etim es we have to send bac k some pr et ty weak let ters , bu t we do the bes t we can to tell folks all we know.

Another im po rta nt asp ect of our technical ass istance work is the tra ining ac tiv ity . At the sa ni ta ry enginee ring cen ter, in Cincinn ati , short -te rm courses which are essent ially at un ive rsi ty postg radu ate level are conduc ted for anyone who wishes to at tend , wi tho ut cost. These courses deal with the measu rem ent of pol lution, control of pollution, the effect of pol lutio n on veg eta tion and he alt h, measu reme nt of dispe rsion through meteorological studies, and so for th. We

AIR POLLUTION 45

con duct ab ou t fifteen 2-week courses per year at the cen ter , usu ally on ab ou t 12 d ifferent su bje cts . We conduc t a few courses in the field, usu ally in coopera tion with a un ive rsi ty, ma kin g use of their c ampus , and perhap s some of thei r instr uc tio n staff. We con duct ab ou t five of w ha t we cal l or ien tat ion c ourses per year . These are 2-d ay courses th at are con duc ted in the field, in a given com mu nity, directed at the general public, mem bers of the chamber of comm erce, schoolteache rs, publ ic officials, and so on, and cove ring very brief ly in a general sense the whole air -po llu tion field.

Thi s tra ini ng ac tiv ity is also support ed by g ran ts, as mentio ned by Dr . Prindle, to universities and to individ uals, so th at they may re tu rn to school for addit ion al tra in ing to suppl em ent t ha t which t he y alr eady have. We also provide a wide range of general support and consult ative services to pub lic or pr ivate agencies, and thi s ma y invo lve field v isits or answe rs of le tte rs o r people co ming to our center. One such case rec ently concern ed Selm a, Ala., where a phosp hate rock fert ilizer pl an t was causing some trouble. One of our staff vis ited Selma and made a repo rt to the State he alt h de pa rtm en t, se tting forth such inform atio n as we could deve lop in a brief stu dy .

If the com mittee wishes, I can make some com ments on the air pol lution sit ua tio n in Alaba ma as ind ica ted by info rma tion I have at presen t. Would you like such inform ation?

Mr . R obe rts . You may proceed.Mr. Schu eneman . Our asso ciation with the air pollut ion situa tion

in Birmingham goes bac k perha ps to 1957. We have had var ious act ivit ies going on in the com mu nity. We hav e not iced in the newspaper, and hav e had rep orted to us by loca l officials, seve ral occasions where num erous houses have been turned black by the action of hyd rogen sulfide on lead pig ment pa int s. Pa rti cu lar ins tances are reca lled from the records, one in Fe br ua ry of 1960, when abou t 40 houses were involved , and a sim ilar inc ide nt in Apri l of 1961. We noti ce in the com mu nity some evidences of soiling of building s by blac kening, e specially up u nder the eaves and in ar t w ork on build ings . Soiling of these building s is eviden t and you can see as you go about evidences of conside rable du st fal l: ju st plain di rty window sills and Venetian blind s. We at one tim e spoke to nur serymen in the area concern ing rais ing pla nts in thi s comm unity . Some ind ica ted that the y had some difficulty in rais ing some species of plan ts in some pa rts of town. These are pa rti cu larly the evergreens. They do n’t seem to do too well in some pa rts of town.

Our firs t effor t to find ou t som eth ing about the air pol lutio n pro blem in Birmingham was to conduc t a surve y in coopera tion with the Jefferson Co un ty He alt h Dep ar tm en t and Ci ty of Birmin gha m Depa rtm en t of Pub lic Impro veme nts . Th is survey was done in 1958, and consisted of a pre lim ina ry appra isa l of the air pollution situ ation in the comm unity and the preparati on of recommenda tion s, general recommenda tion s, as to wh at mi gh t be done in the future . These recommenda tion s were pre pared coo per atively with the agencies invo lved.

This repo rt has been made widely ava ilab le in the com munity . More recent ly, in Ju ne and Ju ly , aga in in coopera tion with the local agencies concerned, we initiate d some mo derat ely exte nsiv e air p ollu tion measu rem ent work for a 3-week period; we made measu rem ent s of hydrogen sulfides , sulf ur dioxide, nit rog en dioxide, ni tri c oxide and

46 AIR POLLUTION

oxida nt, at prin cipally one locat ion in dow ntow n Birmingham. Some of the measu rem ent s were also made in othe r area s.

From these measu rem ents, made at a time when we would expect pol lutio n to be qu ite low, since this was sum me rtim e—there was no spa ce heat going on and meteorological conditions for blowing away pollu tion were general ly good—we found th at the re were some ind icat ion s of pol lution levels of concern. The suspend ed pa rti cu late ma tte r, the du st floa ting in the air, was found to be more than 150 micrograms per cubic me ter on several days, which is higher tha n would be desir able.

We found evidence of soiling by the atm osp her e using a measu reme nt made by drawin g air thro ugh filte r paper. The degree of blackness indicates the amount th at the atm osp her e is likely to soil su rfaces. Some of the values for this mea sure of p ollu tion were found to be higher than desi rable . Du st falling on surfaces was found to be excessive in some residen tial locat ions, with values ran gin g as high as 90 tons pe r square mile per month . We usually feel 25 tons per sq uar e mile per mo nth is a des irab le level.

We did reco rd some measurem ents of oxidan t, which is an index of photochemical smog that is usually asso ciated with the reactio n of hydrocarbons and n itrogen oxide in the atmosp here. We have foun d some oxidan t presen t, ind ica ting t hat this type of photoch emical smog is present to a n ominal , ra ther low level during the summer season .

This work is going to be extended. An add itio nal 3 weeks of s tudy will be done in Birmin gha m in coop eration wi th the Jefferson Co un ty He alt h De pa rtm en t beginning tod ay. Our men arri ved in town this morning, and equip me nt came in las t week. Mr . Gu y Ta te , who is here working wi th Dr . Denn ison, is our prin cipal coo rdinator in this work, along with a rep resent ative of Mr . A. T. Waggo ner ’s office; th at is, the comm issioner of publ ic imp rov ement s for the city of Birm ingham.

The Na tional Air Sam pling Ne twork has opera ted in the city of Birmingham since 1957 in coopera tion wi th the Jefferson Co un ty Health De pa rtm en t. We find th at suspended pa rti cu lat e mat ter, as indica ted by the Na tio na l Air Sam pling Ne twork samp les, is higher tha n th at of ma ny commun ities . Of 48 parti cu lar com munities selec ted for 1 analysis of the da ta , only 7 cities had more suspended pa rticulate mat te r than Birmin gha m during the win ter season. Fo r the yea r-round average 12 of thes e 48 cities had more suspended par ticle m at te r than Birm ingham .

Mr. R oberts . Would you list those cities for the reco rd, Mr . Schueneman ?

Mr. Schueneman . The 48?Mr. R oberts . The 12.Mr. Schu eneman . The 12 th at have more?Mr. R oberts . Yes, sir.Mr . Schu eneman . Yes, sir, I can do th at .Dr. P rin dle. We can provide this later.Mr . R obe rts . All right, you ma y sup ply it for the record.(See p. 55 for inform atio n mentioned abov e.)Mr . Schu ene man. These are not all the cities in which we hav e

made measu rem ents. They were selec ted for a parti cular purpose of mak ing cer tain ana lyse s of the Na tio na l Air Sampling Network da ta.

Mr. H uddleston. Th at is 12 ou t of t he 48 in this pa rti cu lar s tudy .

AIR POLLUTION 47Mr. Schu eneman. Yes, sir.This generally would ind ica te th at Bir min gha m has an elevated

level of sus pended p ar tic ulate m at te r. In these 48 cities , of course, are inclu ded a numb er of cities th at are con side rabl y sma ller than Bi rmingham, and you would gen era lly expect them to have lower con centr ations. A numb er of citie s sma ller than Birmin gha m, however , act ua lly have m ore pol lutio n. So, size is no t the only index of pollution .

Dr. Prindle has m ent ioned the s tu dy of carc inogenic m ate ria l in the atm osp here. Bir min gha m was one of t he cit ies i nvolved in t hat stu dy , and it was foun d th at ben zpy ren e concentra tio ns were, during the period of stu dy , higher than in othe r citie s where measu rem ents were made.

A stu dy was made of air pol lution levels in Birmin gha m aft er and during a stee l str ike th at occurred in 1956. We measured con cen tra tion of 184 micrograms per cubic me ter of suspended parti cu lat e m at te r in the air at seve ral locations in Birmin gha m aft er the stee l str ike , and during the stee l str ike we measured 128 micrograms per cubic meter. This would ind ica te th at the stee l indu str y makes some contr ibu tion to the pol lutio n of the air in Birmin gham, alth ough certa inl y it is no t the only source of pol lutio n.

Insofa r as com ments as to what might be done in the future , these are pr et ty well embodied in our joint rep or t of 1958, and stil l seem fair ly reasonable. Th ey inc lude suggest ions for work t hat c ould begin alm ost immedia tely to ab ate cer tain sources of pollution which are obviously unn ecessa ry and cause local nuisances. The re are a num ber of these. The re is also a need for an emission inv entory . Th is is a list ing of all the pol lutio n th at is em itted to the atm osp here from all kinds of sources, so th at one can tell which sources emit how much pol lution, and , therefore, from this determ ine wha t kind of ab ate men t act ion would be most adv isable and in the general publ ic inte res t.

The re pro bably shou ld be some mo nitoring of air qu ali ty on a con tinuing basis . The am ount of mo nitoring we will be able to do in coopera tion with the coun ty healt h de pa rtm en t and departm en t of publ ic impro vem ent s, a t this time, will be very limited , and in tro ducto ry. There is a need for continuing measu rem ent of this kind.

There is a need for countywid e land-use planning so that the people who make pol lut ion are s epara ted as best can be from people who are affec ted by po llut ion . As I recal l, thi s is not being done, and ind ivi dual com muniti es do their own land-use planning. One com mu nity may pu t its pol lution sources on its east edge and the adjoin ing community pu t its bes t housing area on its wes t side, and thu s loca te to ge the r the pollut ion sources and the people , in imm edia te pro xim ity to each oth er. This makes it necessary to go to more ext rem e me asures of con trol in o rder to a melior ate neighborho od pol lution nuisance s. We feel th at ther e is a need for st ren gth en ing the ex istin g smoke a ba te ment law, or to perha ps repl ace it with a cou ntywid e air pol lution con trol regula tion or law, and perha ps a need to tak e some act ion concern ing the use of high-vola tile coal in firing equ ipm ent for which it is no t sui tab le.

There is a need , too, for prev en tativ e act ion so th at , as new insta lla tions are bu ilt which might cause air pol lut ion , some governm ent agency would see th at these are built in such a way th at they will not

48 AIR POLLUTION

cause trouble in the f utu re. This might be by a sys tem of issuan ce of permits for new construction or mod ifica tion of exis ting facil ities.

I th ink th at ab ou t conc ludes my rem arks .Dr. P rind le . Th is concludes our tes tim ony. We are open to any

questions.Ch airma n R oberts . Th an k you, gentlem en.Mr . N elsen. Has the re been any stu dy made on perha ps an

at tach men t tha t could be pu t on these large smo kes tacks of ind us tria l facili ties th at would reduce the am ou nt of ma ter ial th at would go into the atmosp here.

Mr. Schueneman . General ly speaking , the re are air pollu tion con trol devices ava ilab le th at will colle ct any pa rti cu la te m at te r em itted from either com bustion opera tion s or processing opera tion s. In a few cases we conside r th at these are still undes irably expensive, and we would like to see be tte r devices, more efficien t devices, av ail able at lower cost . Some research is going forw ard in thi s field. There a re also othe r techniqu es, through process changes and through chan ge of m aterial s, which can eliminate or much reduce the emission of pa rti cu late ma ter ial.

Mr . N elsen. We hav e seen, for exam ple, black smoke emerging from a large smoke stack in an ind ustrial plan t. T have often won dered , when you tal k abou t an aft erbu rner on a car exh aus t, the re mig ht be poss ibly something defin ite t hat would be se t in motion during this period when this trem endous am ou nt of carbon emitte d to burn it up.

Dr. P rin dle. In many cases a lot of thi s could be avoided by be tte r com bus tion practic es in the firs t place. In the second place there are ma ny devices, rang ing from ele ctrostat ic pre cip ita tor s to lite ral ly run nin g the air throug h a wa ter ba th and scrubbin g it. Various kinds of dry filters are used and , ac tua lly , the re are af te rburners in use in indu str y in cer tain types of stacks for cer tain typ es of firings.

Chairm an R obe rts . I think, gentlem en, the Chair would like to suggest for the repo rte r’s convenien ce th at we question Dr. Prindle first , and then Mr. Schueneman.

It is going to be confusing h ere if we get in a crossfire, T am afraid .Dr. Prindle, going bac k to your tes tim ony, and I might say it

is highly tech nical na ture and it is ra th er ha rd for me to follow it, bu t I do th an k you for your sta temen t. I would like to know thi s: Wou ld you explain to us wh at is your p rocedu re for m easuring po llu tan ts in the var ious cities where you tak e samples?

Dr. P rin dle. Sir, ther e are a very large numb er of ways . The simplest and the one we have employed most frequently is du st fall, which is a measu rem ent made by tak ing a can or device in which the po llu tan ts fall. Over a period of time th is is the n weighed and the am ount of ma ter ial collec ted is assayed. Fo r example, in our stu dy in Nash ville we h ad some 128 of these devices. Th ey are very inex pensive. Over a 30-day period you collect the am ount of ma ter ial which has fallen ou t of the air.

To move a lit tle fur the r, while we are talkin g abou t thes e partic le- typ e collectors, Mr . Schuenema n mentioned one in which air is drawn thro ugh a filte r pap er. In our na tional air sam plin g network wh at we hav e is a small elect ric pump th at pulls air through a filte r app rox imate ly 8 by 11, I believe, either paper or fiber glass filter , and

AIR POLLUTION 49this runs for a period, usually 24 hours, collecting the solid material. This, then, can be chemically assayed, weighed and measured for the type of pollutants t ha t are present. There are othe r types of devices tha t carry this on further.

A.t the same time none of this measures perhaps some of our more important pollutants , the gaseous materials. These have been the most difficult. Simple devices have existed, of which the most simple is what is called a lead peroxide candle, essentially a piece of gauze infiltrated with lead peroxide. The sulfur present in the air reacts with this. At the end of a period of time we can measure the amount of lead sulfide tha t is present. This gives us some measure of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants. This is rathe r crude, but it can be used.

Moving a little further we can bubble the air through a liquid which traps the particular chemical we are interested in. These liquids are shipped back to our laboratories and assayed by various chemical techniques for the specific gaseous pollutants in which we are interested. Finally, there is chemicoelectric equipment tha t will measure some of these over very brief periods of time, automatica lly and simultaneously. We have jus t launched, again as part of our major studies, an eight-city s tudy for gaseous pollu tants in which we have placed this expensive electronic type of equipment for the assay of some seven or eight gaseous materials, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, oxidants, ozone, nitrogen oxide, and hydrocarbons. These machines, which operate automatically, sample for these substances every 5 minutes, record this on a piece of punched paper tape which we can then put in a computer, so tha t we can calculate the changes which have occurred in any area over a period of time.

So you can see there is a wide range, as Mr. Schueneman described, from visual observation of what is left on the window sill to the ra ther expensive and exotic electronic equipment.

Mr. Schenck. Dr. Prindle mentioned these instruments tha t you are putting around various places. They are portable instruments, aren’t they?

Dr. Prindle. Some of these are. Some of them are not. The big ones I have just mentioned in the eight cities are movable, bu t they are far from portable. On the other hand, most of the type of equipment we use is at least readily movable and in certain cases we have literally mounted it in a truck and sampled in various parts of town in a period of a day.

Mr. Schenck. So even in these large expensive pieces of equipment you can go from one section of a city to another.

Dr. Prindle. Yes, sir.Mr. Schenck. And, therefore, get a rath er wide range of tests.Dr. Prindle. Tha t is right. The only problem here with, say,

these particular ones tha t we are using in the eight cities, is tha t they are large enough tha t we had to provide temporary buildings for them. Obviously we are not going to move them very much. Our plan is to sample in one city for a period of a year or two, then to select another city in which to do similar sampling. It is too expensive for us to do it in all the metropolitan areas of the country.

Mr. Schenck. Mr. Chairman, I have thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated Dr. Prindle’s testimony. I want to point out that the Federal Government does not have any money at all, not one

50 AIR POLLUTION

thin dime, th a t it does no t first colle ct from people in the form of taxes or bor row from people because the sav ings of people are the oidv source of money for loans. Therefore, we as M embers of Congress have to be co ns tan tly aware of th at and to urge as much St ate and local coopera tion as is possible, and to equa te the cost of t he j ob with the bene fits th at are done. In othe r words, ma ny seem to feel th at anything th at the Fed era l Governm ent does is free. I would like to po int ou t th at the re is no t any such th ing as a free lunch. Tha t is all I have.

Mr. R oberts . Mr . Rhodes?Mr. R hodes. Mr . Chairma n, I would first like to comm end Dr.

Prindle and his very capable assis tan t in the Publ ic He alt h Service for their very int ere sting and inform ative sta tem en ts. I welcome thi s op po rtu ni ty to come to thi s im po rta nt ind ust rial city of the Sou th, which is so well represented in the Congress by our colleague, George Huddles ton , who is a very able, respected and influ ential Member of the Hou se of Repre sen tat ive s.

This is my th ird visit to this State . My first since I hav e been a Member of the Congress. I wa nt to also comm end the people of Ala bam a for being so well rep resented in the U.S. Sen ate by such ou tst andin g men as Joh n Spark man and Lis ter Hill. It has been my privilege and a grea t pleasure to be asso ciated with Senator Hill in thi s public healt h work. I th ink he is one of the ou tst andin g, if not the m ost ou tst an din g m an, in t he Un ited Sta tes in the c on tribu tio n th at has been made to public healt h prob lems. Of course , I want to say t hat in the House Alab ama is also rep resented by an ou tst an din g leader in this field, o ur chairma n of the H ouse Subc ommit tee on He alt h and Safety. I th ink Mr. Rober ts and I came to the Congress to gether , and it has been my plea sure to work with him. I know th at he has made a trem end ous contr ibu tion no t only in try ing to find a solu tion for this air pollu tion prob lem, bu t also in othe r fields pe rtainin g to public healt h and safety .

I only have one question 1 would like to ask of Dr. Prindle, and tha t is what he thinks is the respon sib ility of the local and St ate gover nments deal ing wi th this problem of air pol lution, and wh at is the pro per place for the Fed era l Go vernm ent, the pa rt th at the Fed era l Gover nment shou ld tak e in thi s work.

Dr. P rin dle . Sir, I feel I would be a very poor one to judge wh at the State an d local gov ernments should do in the ir own rights . I believe th e role of th e Federal G overn ment is ju st as our law has ou tlined, provision of technical assistance, research knowledge, and t he inform ation on which a State and local governm ent might act. I recogn ize th at the re is a serious prob lem, often a t the local level, such as Mr. Schueneman has m entioned, one t hat is in the inte rju risdic tional area, th at is b etween counties o r between a c ity and its a djo inin g com ity, o r betw een dis tric ts. Here I believe the St ate has a real respon sib ility in help ing establ ish a uniform code, if you please, th at will assi st all of its citizens equally. But I th ink i t would be improper for a memb er of the Federa l Gover nm ent executive bra nch , as I am, to com ment fur the r.

I th ink th at Federa l assi stance, in the sense of provid ing technica l assi stance is desi rable . As I mentioned, in Mr. Ke nnedy’s message, the hope is expre ssed th at the re might be even Feder al finan cial assi stance to these sta tes and localit ies on. say a ma tch ing basis . Havin g seen th at the loca lity or St ate is suffic iently intere sted th at

AIR POLLUTION 51

it will pu t up tax funds, it might behoove the Federal Government to render assistance in the form of financial grants, particular ly for certain areas in which the expense of a program, or at least beginning a program, may be high.

Mr. Rhodes. I would like to add one thing further. I am one who believes that the Federal Government has a very important part to play in this field. It is in a position to do what can’t be done on a local and State level. I am not one of those who say tha t the Federal Government is big and bad. I think the Federal Government is jus t as close to the people as any other level of government. It is just as close as the people make it by their understanding, by their interest, and by their participation. I think that the Federal Government has a very important par t to play, and again I say I think this committee is playing a very impor tant part in meeting a problem and meeting many of these problems which are very important to the people, not only in Birmingham, Ala., bu t of the Nation.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Rhodes.I am sure I speak for Mr. Huddleston and the Senators and certainly

the chairman of this subcommittee for your complimentary words. We will be glad to try to extend your stay down here if you would like to be with us. We are glad to have you with us.

Mr. Nelsen?Mr. Nelsen. I would like to make an observation and comment

relative to this hearing. I think some of the information which has been brought out here will now be relayed to people of the area which in turn stimulates public interest and public cooperation. It would probably be impossible for any Government agency or any committee to go around installing afterburners on trucks and cars. The point is if the people learn the story, they in turn will participate . It is not the dollars so much as the interest tha t we can stimulate by hearings of this kind.

I would like to make comment about our good chairman and my colleague to my left, tha t our chairman has been very interested in this particular field. Sometimes I thought perhaps to get into the study of outer space would be more of a challenge and a great deal more excitement perhaps, but Ken has devoted a great deal of time to this study, and as this testimony is exposed, I can understand why. I want to add my compliment to those that have already been extended to him for providing leadership in the Congress in this very important field.

I might say, from a chamber of commerce approach in Minnesota, the weather was very mild when I left and very much like the weather is here. About 10 days ago I was with a committee tha t went to Amarillo, Tex., on the study of the extension of the Sugar Act. We left Sioux Falls, S. Dak., in sunshine and flew into a snow storm in Amarillo, Tex., and I was marooned there for 3 days and could not get back to the sunshine of Minnesota. I have to say you have fine weather here in Alabama and I am happy to be here again.

Mr. Roberts. Thank you. We are certainly glad to have you and appreciate what you have to say. If I can keep you long enough, I am going to see tha t you get an eight-point buck.

Mr. O’Brien?Mr. O’Brien. Mr. Chairman, I too would like to compliment the

witnesses. They certainly have taught me a great deal this morning.

52 AIR POLLUTION

I am no t going to be the only mem ber of this com mit tee who is no t going to say s ometh ing ab ou t our cha irman. My first reac tion when I wen t on the Co mm itte e of In te rs ta te and Foreign Com merce was to escape as quickly as possible from this subcom mit tee. I did no t th ink I had too mu ch in common. Ot her than being an automobi le driver.

I do wa nt to say this , th at a St ate is very fo rtu na te when it has in Congress a m an who is willing to go beyo nd being a m essenger boy for a d ist ric t, who is g rappling with thes e g reat pro blem s th at affect us all. I h ave stayed with t ins com mit tee because the cha irman in m y opinion is a very ded ica ted man . He has demo nstra ted when it comes to mat ters of healt h there is no No rth , South , Ea st, o r West . We are all in the same bo at.

I have ju st one que stio n, Doctor. How quickly is pollution from an area such as Birmin gha m diss ipa ted? llo w far does it extend beyond the g enera ting point?

Dr. P rindle . This is something we h ave no g reat dea l of knowledge on as yet. There is no q uest ion bu t wh at under cer tain circ umstan ces it can be disperse d ra th er rap idly . In general , however, it is ra th er sta rtl ing how limited , real ly, the air resource is, and when we get the pa rti cu lar phenom enon known as an inversion, a meteorological phenomenon th at is q uit e frequent in ma ny area s, then we essent ially hav e the equiv ale nt of a “li d” on the area . If wind movem ent is very low, higher po llut ion levels m ay be p res ent for a long time—days. We are now at tempt ing to eva lua te and se t up a stu dy in an area in which several m etropoli tan areas exist , so th at we can find ou t how much one ci ty ’s pol lutio n really came from next door , and ju st how far pol lutio n does travel .

One ins tance th at I can cite th at it tra ve ls a good dis tance is th at the re has been conside rable dam age to certa in tru ck garden s in New Jers ey. This is an are a in which no larg e citie s exist. I t is in the garden area of the Garde n Sta te. Th is dam age has been es tim ate d as somewhere betw een $15 and $20 million a year to these crops . Obviously , the pol lution mus t come from a good dist anc e, because the neare st citie s are qu ite a few miles from th at area. The sam e is tru e in the upper valley of the Co nnec tic ut Riv er, in which dam age to tobacco crops has occu rred . Again no ma jor obvious sources exist except those me tropolita n areas some miles away.

Mr. O’B rien . That would und erscore th e nece ssity of St ate legislati on authoriz ing citie s in seve ral countie s perhap s to form a coun ty au tho rity, agency, or comm ission. Also, would it no t ind ica te the des irabil ity of some Fe deral legi slat ion pe rm itt ing inter state compac ts? You mentio ned the New York-N ew Jer sey situa tio n. Heave n only knows where the pol lution conies from down around the re. You might be ge tting i t from New York or New Jer sey or bo th.

Dr. P rin dle. Some of the spokesmen in our Dep ar tm en t have indicated th at the type of legi slat ion which the y are conside ring would include th at which would encourage eith er mult idi str ict or in ters ta te and in tras ta te regional org anizat ions to be establis hed . As a m at te r of fact , thi s shou ld be done no t only w ith the bac king of the Fed era l Gover nm ent , bu t perha ps with our urging, recogniz ing th at air pol lutio n does no t know any pol itical bounda ries , even in te rnat ion al. We would look with enc ourage ment tow ard any gro up organizat ion , me tropolita n or wh ate ver, th at would help solve such problems.

AIR POLLUTION 53

Mr. O’Brien. I was interested in one other thing, the list of cities tha t you read off. I noticed tha t some of them were what we call heavy industrial cities and some were not. I don’t think of Washington, D.C. as an industria l city particularly. I did not notice Schenectady, N.Y., where General Electric is located. 1 don’t know whether tha t is in your list or not.

Mr. Schueneman. We just did not happen to get there yet.Mr. O’Brien. Isn’t it a fact tha t air pollution to some degree

exists in practically every city in the United States where there is any substantial amount of traffic.

Dr. Prindle. This is quite true.Mr. O’Brien. Or industry or both?Dr. P rindle. As a matter of fact, pollution exists where people

exist. It is the activities of the citizenry, whether it be in the sense of driving cars, burning their leaves, heating their homes. All of these things are going to contribute. In an area such as Washington, you are quite correct, there is no industry except Government, if you wish to call th at an industry . At the same time any of us who have driven to work there recognize the traffic problems and recognize tha t is a potent ial contributor.

Mr. O’Brien. And a very big volume of hot air.Dr. Prindle. I am glad you said that.Mr. O’Brien. I notice tha t in Birmingham the chamber of com

merce has an air pollution committee, would it not be desirable for any chamber of commerce anywhere to have the same or perhaps the city, itself, have a volunteer committee headed by the health officer, if you want, and consisting of representatives of the various industries? Would th at not keep the communities alert to this problem?

Dr. Prindle. It would certainly help. If I might, I would like to quote from an article by a very famous scientist, who incidentally has not been working with us, b ut independently, Dr. Walsh McDermott, who wrote recently in Scientific American on “Air Pollution and Public Health” :

Public Health officials alone cannot be expected to secure the acquiescence of the hosts of private and public interests, businessmen, public officials, consumers and taxpay ers in the considerable expense and effort th at is necessarily involved. What is needed is a citizens’ movement in the environmental-pollut ion field like the conservation movement of Theodore Roosevelt’s day. The plant manager is reluct ant to raise the factory smokestack 50 feet if nothing is done about the open burning at the city dump, and the city manager faces the same problem in reverse. A citizens’ movement is needed, above all, to secure the cooperation of citizens—in minimizing pollution by the automobile, for example, by proper engine main tenance. An aroused public opinion has brought the establishme nt of air-po llution control boards in a number of communi ties across the cou ntry , some of them in inters tate .

I think this is along this same line. Whether it be the chamber of commerce or a citizens’ group is immaterial. But a body continually concerned with the problem and representing the people of the community would be most desirable.

Mr. O’Brien . Thank you very much.Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien.I want to thank you for your statement. I would like to say one

reason I think our subcommittee has accomplished what it has is the dedication of members of the subcommittee. Here are men who have busy schedules who have come hundreds of miles to attend this hearing

54 AIR POLLUTION

and to try to be helpful no t only to this State , bu t to all State s which are afflicted with this problem. I want to than k you, Mr. O’Brien .

Mr. Schenck?Mr. Schenck . I have no desire to contr ibu te to the unf ilte red hot

air pollution, bu t I wan t to join my colleagues in the ir tri bu te to you. It has been my privilege to work with you since 1956 . I have never known anyone more dedicated to the work of this sub com mittee .

I would like to say, too, I th ink th at the great est contr ibu tion the Federa l Gover nment can make to this ent ire situa tion is the development of informa tion which cannot be done at the local level and make it avail able to our local comm unit ies and to such organizat ions as local com munities can develop. Now, with th at sort of inform atio n scientifically deve loped th at can be com pared and coo rdinated and dev eloped , and related to local problems, then the local com mu nity can do a be tte r job for less money tha n it can do otherwise. Isn’t th at true?

Dr. P rin dle. I th ink this is quite cor rec t. Again , I mentio ned training, in ra th er brief term s ear lier in my discussion. Tra ining and info rma tion , shall we say “ge tting o ut the word,” is a very im po rta nt role th at we have to play.

Mr. Sche nck . Yes. Now, some folks are wondering why the y do n’t pu t the exhaust pipe of automobi les , trucks and busses , all of them , up in the air like the y do on some tra ctor -tr ai ler ope rations . Some of the engineers have told me seve ral reasons why the y do n’t— one is th at pu tti ng it down to the gro und there is g rea ter turbulence, and , therfore, grea ter dis tribu tion of the exh aus t gases and pu tti ng it up in the air also crea tes some he at problem s th at are dan gero us to people . I mea n the y have to insula te those e levated exh aus t pipes. Do you have any com men t on th at , Do cto r Prin dle?

Dr. P rindle . Sir, I recognize the re hav e been seve ral schools of though t on the sub jec t, and conside rabl e deb ate . As I recal l, it was Congres sman Brock who reques ted us some time ago to 'make a stu dy in regard to this . I believe a rep ort has been furn ished the committee in which we made s tud ies on the p lacement of the a uto exh aus t pipe. We believe th at in the moving vehicle the placem ent is prob ably no t ter rib ly importa nt, since a t either level the re is suffic ient turbulence, so th at w hat is comin g ou t is being blown aro und. Howeve r, in the w ork we d id at the r equest of this subcom mittee, we were able to show th at in the vehicle in traffic , where cars are lite rall y bum per to bum per , this could mak e an im po rta nt difference.

The placem ent , no t only of this exh aus t pipe down near the g rou nd level, bu t the plac eme nt of the vent of the following car could play a very im po rta nt role in th at the occ upant s of the car behin d the first may rece ive a very high level of carb on-m onoxide b ecause the ve nt of the irs is lite ral ly tak ing in air from the exh aus t pipe of the prec eding vehicle. This could play an im po rta nt role in safety , and I th ink is one th at should be bro ught to the at tent ion of the people concerned with automobi le safe ty. There h ave been oth er stud ie s: Co nsum er’s Reports pointed ou t th at in cer tain typ es of s ta tio n wagons, with the placem ent of the e xhaust pipe n ear the bac k door, th at when thi s was open the e xhaust was lite ral ly suck ed bac k into the vehicle as it drove along and aga in raised the carbon-monoxide levels. I believe these are things th at y our sub com mittee would be mo st int ere ste d in, sir.

Mr . Sche nck . Th ank you ve ry much.

AIR POLLUTION 55

Mr. R oberts. I think the subcommittee will take a 5-minute break at this time. We will resume with this witness when we come back.

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)Mr. Roberts. The subcommittee will be in order.Now, Mr. Schueneman, I wanted particularly for you to supply for

the record, with leave to supply a complete list later, the cities that the Public Heal th Service has been interested in, th at is what we call the 12 cities which you spoke of. Could you give us this fairly accurate, at least some of them?

Mr. Schueneman. Yes, sir, I can read it. This was a study done on National Air Sampling Network data collected for the period 1957 through 1959, from selected cities of the network, for which there was enough data to warran t the kind of data treatm ent tha t was to be made. Forty-eight cities were involved in this particular analysis of data, although there are about 175 cities that have from time to time been involved in the air sampling network. The data were broken up into seasonal groups, with the winter season being December, January, and February, and the others following the usual order.

During the winter season there were 7 of these 48 cities tha t had higher suspended particle pollution than Birmingham. Those seven cities were Wilmington, Del.; New York City; Philadelphia; Pit tsburgh; Charleston, W. Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; Albuquerque, N. Mex.; Phoenix, Ariz.; and Los Angeles, Calif.

I might note tha t the reason for the high values in Albuquerque and Phoenix are undoubtedly associated with windblown surface dust. It is quite dry and dusty in that part of the country.

Then, considering these 48 cities for the year as a whole, and for the 3 years, there were 12 cities tha t had more suspended particulate pollution than Birmingham. These were Wilmington, Del.; New York City; Philadelphia; Pittsburgh; Charleston, W. Va.; Indianapolis, Ind.; Cleveland, Ohio; Des Moines, Iowa; St. Louis Mo.; Albuquerque; Phoenix; and Los Angeles.

I want to emphasize tha t this measure of suspended particulate matt er is only one measure of pollution. We must also consider the gaseous pollutants and other particulate components of pollution. The particu late measured here is the gross weight of the particulate matter in the air. It gives no consideration as to what it is.

Mr. Roberts. Then, could you say from experience in Albuquerque and Phoenix tha t it does not necessarily follow tha t a city of heavy industry is affected by pollution? What I am trying to say is that those two cities I would not consider as being heavily industrialized.

Mr. Schueneman. No, sir, they are not, I believe.Mr. Roberts. You would say tha t this problem is not necessarily

tied in with heavy industry. I mean it can occur in cities of other types?

Mr. Schueneman. Yes, sir.Mr. Roberts. And does occur in cities of other types?Mr. Schueneman. Yes, sir. It occurs in those two communities,

Albuquerque and Phoenix, because of pollution tha t we would not ordinarily consider manmade pollution.

Mr. Roberts. I was interested particularly in one example you gave, Nashville, Tenn. I am fairly familiar with Nashville. I would not consider Nashville anything like in the class of heavy- industry cities like Birmingham. Would you agree with that sta tement?

56 AIR POLLUTION

Mr. Schueneman . Tha t is right. I t is no t per vad ed with heav y ind us try . The pol lutio n in th at town is due in subs tan tia l measure,, to use of coal for fuel, and because of pa rti cu lar ly bad meteorological and topograph ical c ond itions th at r est ric t ven tila tion.

Mr. R oberts . Mr . Huddles ton , do you have an y questions?Mr . H uddleston. Yes, Mr . Cha irman.Con tinu ing with our local situ atio n here in Birmin gha m, I would

like to ask Mr . Schueneman a ques tion or two.Mr. Schueneman, in your opinion, have the studies th at have been

made relating to Birmin gham been sufficient ly detaile d and sufficiently thorough to be able to draw any conclusions regard ing the air pollu tion in this area th at would give our people here some idea as to the seriousness of our situa tion?

Mr. Schue neman. Based on all the inform atio n I have ava ilab le, I can say th at the pollution situ ation in Birmin gha m is worse than you would want to accept , and th at the sources of pollution, ma ny of them, are pr et ty well kn own and c ould be brough t und er con trol with exis ting info rma tion .

Mr. H uddleston . You men tioned the sources of the pol lution. What do you r stud ies indica te are the sources in the Birmin gha m area th at might be our problem areas?

Mr. Schueneman. Certa inly, when you th ink of Birmin gha m you thi nk of the pr im ary metallu rgic al ind ust ries, the iron and stee l industr ies. Anoth er prin cipal source th at ma ny citie s hav e alr eady undertaken con trol of is use of soft coal in hand-fi red furnaces . Th is is not n ecessary. You can fire soft coal in mechanical stokin g devices and preven t smoke, or you can use different kin ds of fuel. Among some of th e o the rs th at I reca ll, I believe—I had b et te r look them up— suffice it to say the re are a numb er of obv ious sources th at you can see, ju st with the naked eye, the visu al pollut ion rising from these th at y ou know are causing the prob lem.

Mr. H uddleston. These sources appear in the 1958 repo rt dea ling with air pollut ion in Birmingham.

Mr. Schu eneman . In a g eneralized sense, yes, sir.Mr . H uddleston. I believe th at is all.Mr . Schu eneman . Tha t is a general pic ture. If one wanted to

ge t more det aile d and specific as to how far he ought to go in control of cer tain oth er sources of pol lution, then he would be well adv ised to have some furth er invest iga tion before moving.

Mr. O’Brien . Mr . Chairman, ma y I ask a ques tion .Mr. R oberts . Mr . O’Brien.Mr. O’Bri en . I recogn ize th at the problem, you say , is serious

here , and it is worse than it should be. But isn ’t i t a fac t when you rea d over the l ist of c ities th at are worse off when you place Birmin gham in jux tap ositio n with oth er ind ustrial cities it sta nds ou t ve ry well. I t is no worse than the average. Is th at corr ect?

Mr. Schueneman . Fo r i ts size, I th ink it is pr obably worse t han the average .

Mr. O’Bri en . Fo r its size?Mr. Schueneman . Fo r its size. Most of the citie s th at I me n

tioned , th at had more susp ended pa rti cu la te pol lutio n than Bir mingham , are larger th an Bir min gha m by a fac tor of 2 or 3, such as New York, Philad elphia , and Pi tts bu rgh. These are cities much larger and yet have only slightly more pol lution.

AIR POLLUTION 57

Mr. O’Brien. What about Charleston, W. Va.?Dr. Schueneman. Tha t is a smaller town.Mr. Huddleston. You omitted Chicago from the list of cities tha t

have a worse pollution problem than Birmingham. What is the situa tion in Chicago?

Mr. Schueneman. By a quirk of fate, Chicago was not among these cities.

Mr. Huddleston. Chicago was not surveyed?Mr. Schueneman. Was not in th is grouping. For some reason or

other we did not have sufficient data on Chicago a t the time this was written to determine.

Dr. Prindle. May I comment here tha t Chicago is most fortunate in its meteorology and topography, which assists it in the solution of its air pollution problem considerably. Actually, if they had the same type of meteorology and topography tha t some other cities do, they would have a more severe problem th an they do.

Mr. Schueneman. I would not want to leave the impression tha t these are the only cities in the country tha t have more or less pollution than Birmingham. There are many cities that we have not included in the list under consideration at this time. I am sure there are more than seven cities in the United States tha t are dirtier than Birmingham.

Mr. Huddleston. I would like to make reference to cities with the heavy type of indus try such as we have in Birmingham. I notice on your list you have such cities as Pittsburgh and Cleveland, to name two of them, which are steel towns so to speak, that have a higher ratio of air pollution than Birmingham. How do you think tha t Birmingham stacks up with other iron and steel centers in the country?

Mr. Schueneman. Tha t is a tricky one. I would not like to make a categorical answer to that , if I can defer it.

Mr. Huddleston. Let us compare Birmingham with Pittsburgh and Cleveland. How do they compare with the other cities in the survey?

Mr. Schueneman. Comparing Birmingham with Pittsburgh, 1 would not want to answer that on the basis of information that I can call to mind at this point. There are too many factors involved, including gaseous pollutan ts and suspended particulate pollutants and so forth. I do no t have at hand, and in mind, the data.

Mr. Huddleston. On the basis of the survey of the 48 cities, which I believe is particu late pollution, I think the table speaks for itself. But what I want you to do is to get into the record how Birmingham, as far as particu late pollution is concerned, compares with Pittsburgh and Cleveland, other major iron and steel producing centers.

Mr. Schueneman. On the basis of this 3-year period measurement of suspended particu late matte r, average concentrations in Birmingham were found to be 161 micrograms per cubic meter. For Pit tsburgh they were found to be 215. What was the o ther one?

Mr. H uddleston. Cleveland.Mr. Schueneman. For Cleveland it was 176.Mr. H uddleston. So both Cleveland and Pittsburgh had a higher

incidence of part iculate pollution than Birmingham?Mr. Schueneman. Yes, sir. At these par ticula r locations. These

are measurements made at one location in the central downtown district. This has a lot of influence on the value you get. It may be in one community the sampling station is very close, say within a

58 AIR POLLUTION

couple of miles, to a major source of pollution, whereas in another community it may be 5 miles. So, you have to consider so many things when you say, Is city A dirtier than city B? There are many, many factors to be involved in that.

Dr. Prindle. If I can interject again, I think the situation, as Mr. Schueneman says, is extremely difficult to compare. Not only do you have the s ituation in Pittsburgh where the surrounding countryside is also contributing mightily to their air pollution problems, since the plants in Pittsburgh are only a par t of the total pollution source. There are plenty of others outside even Allegheny County tha t are contributing to that pollution. To a large extent the same is true of Cleveland. Again, too, as he mentioned, the location of the plants, which, in the case of both of those cities in certain situat ions are right in the downtown area, contribu te again to a changed pic ture. The difference between some of these figures such as 161 and 176 are relatively minor. In other words, to sum up, Birmingham is right up there with them.

Mr. Rhodes. To what extent is air pollution control a factor in the differences between these cities?

Dr. Prindle. At the time of this study I would say it was not a major factor in most of the situations. I believe Pittsburgh, of course, did have considerable control of its soft coal burning. This, of course, would be a main factor in the diminution. There is no question that the levels we are finding now are considerably lower than they were a few years ago.

Mr. Schueneman, I think you might add to this.Mr. Schueneman. There is no doubt there has been a lot of progress

made in the control of air pollution in most of these cities. Certainly, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Los Angeles. These towns have all made tremendous strides in the control of pollution. Pollution would have been much higher now had they not engaged in pollution control, although it is still pret ty high. It would have been a lot worse.

Mr. O’Brien. Would it not be fair to say it is a serious problem wherever there is still manufacture? There are no exact figures available at this time to say which is be tter or which is worse. All three have a problem by the fact tha t they are at least thriving industrial centers.

Dr. Prindle. I think there is another thing out here, however, which may have been missed earlier in Mr. Schueneman’s testimony. Tha t although steel is a contributor here, during the steel strike we were able to show there was still a considerable amount of pollution in Birmingham, even when the industry was shut down. So tha t there are plenty of other sources th at require recognition and control in this area.

Mr. Roberts. Gentlemen, we must move on. We have other witnesses. If there are no further questions from the subcommittee at this time, or Mr. Huddleston, we will take the next witness. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

Mr. Schueneman. Would you like to put the entire table in the record?

Mr. Roberts. Without objection, I think it would be well to put it in the record.

(The statement referred to follows:)

AIR POLLUTION 59T a b le 3.— Seasonal levels of suspended particulate matter at certain selected citie s

in the national air samplin g network (urban stations)

S ta ti on I Reg ionJ W in te r

H ar tf o rd , C o n n ___ I _____N ew H av en , C onn, I _____B os to n, M ass ........... I . . . .Pro vi den ce , R .I ___ I _____B url in gto n , V t____ 1 .........W ilm in gto n , D e l. . I I ____N ew Y or k, N .Y I I ____P hil adel ph ia , P a . . . I I ____P it ts b u rg h , P a ____ I I ____B al tim ore , M d .. . I I I . . . .C harl o tt e , N . C . . . I I I . . . .Nor fo lk , V a............... I I I . . . .C har le st on , W . Va I I I . . . .B ir m in gham , A la .. I V . . . .T a m p a , F la _______ I V . . . .A tl a n ta , G a_______ I V . . . .Ja ck so n, M is s .......... I V . . . .C ol um bia , S .C ........ I V . . . .N as hvil le , T e n n . . I V . . . .In d ia nap o li s, I n d ._ V .........D et ro it , M ic h _____ V .........C in c in nati , O h io .. . V .........Y oungs to w n, O hi o. V .........C le ve la nd , O hi o___ V .........C olu m bus, O hi o__ V .........M ilw au kee , W is __ V .........Des M oi ne s, Io w a .. V I . . . .M in nea po lis , M in n. V I . . . .K an sa s C it y , M o . . V I . . . .St . Lo ui s, M o.......... V I . . . .O m ah a, N e b r . ___ V I . . . .B is m ar ck , N . D a k . V I . . . .Sioux Fa lls , S. D ak . V I . . . .L it tl e Roc k, A r k .. . V I I . . .N ew Orle an s, L a .. . V I I . . .A lb uquer que, N . V I I . . .

M ex .H oust on , T ex ........... V I I . . .Sa n A nt oni o, T e x .. V I I . . .D en ver , C ol o_____ V I I I . .Bo ise , Id ah o ............. V I I I . .H el en a, M o n t.......... V I I I . .S al t Lak e C it y , V I I I . .

U ta h.C hey en ne , W yo___ V I I I . .Phoe ni x, A ri z_____ I X . . . .Lo s Ang ele s, C al if .. I X . . . .Sa n Fr an ci sc o, I X . . . .

Ca lif .Sa n Dieg o, C al if _. I X - . . -P o rt la n d , Oreg I X . . . .

12711918612452

23222921522517917714024321110012768

15215819515816016218316314319816617621711463928092

304

11915016311967

160

42303246115

118105

M ean lev el s, ug /m ’ R el at iv e le ve ls

Spr in g Sum m er

FaU 3- year W in te r Spring Sum m er

Fal l

106 80 85 100 1.27 1.06 0.80 0.8579 84 89 93 1.28 .85 .90 96153 115 127 143 1.30 1.07 .80 . 89141 95 113 117 1.06 1.21 .81 .9764 50 43 53 .98 1.21 .94 81179 161 145 180 1.29 .99 . 89 81210 187 170 200 1.15 1.05 .94 85170 140 205 185 1.16 .92 . 76 1 11242 219 162 215 1.05 1.13 1.02 75157 122 120 144 1.24 1.09 .85 . 83117 74 115 122 1.45 1.02 .61 . 94125 102 93 114 1.23 1.10 .89 8*2242 138 231 215 1.13 1.13 .64 1.07157 110 159 161 1.31 .98 .68 .99100 79 93 93 1.08 1.08 . 85 1 00121 114 102 117 1.09 1.03 .97 . 8775 102 82 82 .83 .91 1.24 1 00126 100 124 125 1.22 1.01 .80 .99166 132 154 153 1.03 1.08 .86 1.01169 155 165 171 1.14 .99 .91 . 96177 144 140 155 1.02 1.14 .93 90129 130 138 140 1.14 .92 .93 99163 120 182 159 1.02 1.03 .75 1 14190 172 150 176 1.04 1.08 .98 89147 148 173 158 1.03 .93 .94 1 09164 145 154 152 .94 1.08 .95 1. 01179 166 140 172 1. 15 1.04 .97 81183 77 91 128 1.30 1.43 . 60 71175 147 161 165 1.07 1.06 .89 98185134

172112

193172

192134

1.13.85

.961.00

.90

.841.01 1 28127 97 78 93 .68 1.37 1.04 . 84128 80 102 102 .90 1.25 .78 1 0084 84 90 85 .94 .99 .99 1.0697 74 105 92 1.00 1.05 .80 1 14153 188 219 212 1.43 .72 .89 1.03

143 108 120 123 .97 1.16 .88 .98156 110 114 133 1. 13 1.17 .83 86105 103 123 125 1.30 .84 .82 .9897 113 137 117 1.02 .83 .97 1.1764 97 92 81 .83 .79 1.2 0 1.1497 98 114 116 1.38 .84 .84 .9841 65 61 52 .81 .79 1.25 1 17203 167 231 228 1.33 .89 .73 1 01160 190 234 204 1.21 .78 .93 1. 1566 56 80 80 1.44 .83 .70 1.0074 86 109 98 1.20 .76 .88 1.1175 70 133 96 1.09 .78 .73 1.39

Mr. R obe rts . Dr . Gallalee?Dr Gallalee is a form er pres ide nt of the Un ive rsi ty of Ala bam a

an old friend of mine. I do n’t mea n in point of age, but I mean we have had a long friendsh ip. He is recognized, of course, as one °t tlw ou tst an din g engineers in the south ern pa rt of our coun try . I flunk the chamber of commerce is ve ry fo rtu na te in hav ing selec ted Dr . Gallalee as cha irm an of its stud y adv isory com mit tee It is a gre at deal of p lea sur e th at we welcome Dr . Galla lee.

You may proceed with your sta temen t.

60 AIR POLLUTION

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. GALLALEE, CHAIRMAN, ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON AIR POLLUTION, JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARDOF HEALTH

Dr. Gallalee. This is a statem ent of the Advisory Committee on Air Pollution of the Jefferson County Board of Health to the Subcommittee on Health and Safety of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, dated November 27, 1961.

The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, representing most of the businesses and professional leadership of the community, has been interested in the problem of atmospheric pollution for a number of years. The business interests of the community have cooperated with the Jefferson County Board of Health and the local governmental bodies of the area over these years, as there are certain aspects of the problem tha t involve the public health and will require action by local and State governing bodies.

Some studies have been made by the U.S. Public Health Service in cooperation with the Jefferson County Board of Health in this area.

At the request of the Jefferson County Board of Health, the B irmingham Chamber of Commerce was asked to name an advisory committee on air pollution to the Jefferson County Board of Health. The board of directors of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce authorized its president, Mr. Sidney W. Smyer, to appoint the committee. The committee appointed is composed of citizens representing, as nearly as possible, all groups affected or interested in this problem, including representatives of industry, labor, and various governmental agencies in Jefferson County.

I was asked to serve as chairman of this advisory committee. This advisory committee has met with officials of the Jefferson Comity Board of Heal th and the U.S. Public Health Service and has set up broad outlines within which the committee will function and cooperate with the appropriate governmental agencies.

The advisory committee believes th at the problem of air pollution must be considered on a local regional basis in order to determine the sources, extent, and results of air pollution. After such determination is made the committee must endeavor to secure appropriate action from both indust ry and government for the control of air pollution.

The advisory committee feels tha t any problem in this field must be considered from a long-term and continuing basis and tha t past studies and research, both local and national, should be continued and expanded. The work of both the city of Birmingham and the U.S. Public Health Service in previous air samplings made in the Birmingham area and the research of the Public Health Service on a national basis must necessarily be continued and expanded in order to determine first the problems, and secondly, the steps necessary to control whatever problems may be found to exist. Although the problems of air pollution control obviously must be handled on a local basis in every case and can be made effective only with an acceptance by all of the citizens of the community including necessarily the industrial citizenship, the Public Health Service can render invaluable help to the local community in this problem by continuing its program of research, particular ly in the determination of the results of the various kinds of air pollution.

AIR POLLUTION 61

That concludes my sta temen t, Mr . Chairman.(The mem bers of the advisory com mittee on air pollution are as

follows:)B ir m in g h a m C h a m b er of C om m er ce

ST UDY AN D ADVIS ORY CO M M IT TEE ON A IR PO LLU TIO N IN T H E JE F F E R S O N CO UN TY AREA

Dr. John M. Gallalee, chairm an, 305 North 21st Street , Birmingham, Ala.J. C. Barry , Stan dard Oil Co., Post Office Box 2654, Birmingham, Ala.R. W. Block, N ation al Woodworks, Inc., Post Office Box 5416, Birmingham, Ala.B. Rope r Dial, Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1531 Nor th Second Avenue, Birmingham,

Ala.Robert W. Holman, TCI Division, Uni ted States Steel Corp., Post Office Box

599, Fairfield, Ala.William E. Hood, Industrial Pa int Man ufac turing Co., Pos t Office Box 2371,

Birmingham, Ala.James A. King, Reese-King Realty Co., 2212 Third Avenue, Nor th, Birmingham,

Ala.L. E. King, Southern Railway System, 2201 First Avenue, North, Birmingham,

Ala.W. M. Mobley, Alabama By-Prod ucts Corp., Post Office Box 354, Birmingham,

Ala.C. P. Rather , vice chairman, Southern Na tur al Gas Co., Post Office Box 2563,

Birmingham, Ala.Mark Norton, Planning and Zoning Board, city of Birmingham, Birmingham,

Ala.Charles A. Speir, Jefferson County Planning Commission, county courthouse,

Birmingham, Ala.Donald Stafford, president, Birmingham Labor Council, AFL -CIO , 28f£ South

20th Street, Birmingham, Ala.B. L. Wyman, Jr., Lone Sta rt Cement Corp., 2130 High land Avenue, Birming

ham, Ala.Mr. R obe rts . Th an k you, Dr . Galla lee. I wa nt to express

the than ks of the sub com mittee for your appeara nce , and your contr ibu tio n. I certa inly co ngrat ula te the business comm unity , its citiz ens and the cha mber of commerce in selecting you as cha irman of thi s very im po rta nt com mit tee . I wa nt to wish you eve ry success in your work.

Are the re any furth er ques tion s, gen tlem en, from the subcom mittee?Th an k you.Dr. Gall alee. Th an k you, Mr. Chairma n.Mr. R obe rts . Is Dr. Bra nscomb here?Dr. Branscomb is assis tan t professo r of the unive rsi ty medical

cen ter, and has done wh at we th ink is very im po rta nt work in the field of emphysem a. We are happy, Docto r, to have you and would like to tell us abou t your work.

STATEMENT OF DR. BEN V. BRANSCOMB, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Dr. Branscomb. Gentle men , wh at I would like to do very briefly is po int ou t firs t the close tie-in betw een the health problem s, th at is researc h into bro nch itis and emp hys ema with the problem of air pol lution. I would like to tell you wha t our program app roa ch has been in our rese arch pro gram on thi s and sugg est wh at our pa st source of sup po rt has been and wh at ou r prob lems are where we th ink we can utiliz e a sys tem at the Federal level.

In the first place , tho ugh it is probably well known to thi s group, I th ink it migh t bear rep ea tin g for me to mention the magni tud e

62 AIR POLLUTION

of the problem of chronic lung disease in this country. Emphysema is a common disabling lung condition in which the lungs become progressively less able to move air to and fro so tha t people get out of breath and they stay tha t way for years, and this can throw a strain on the heart too. Bronchitis and emphysema are increasing rapidly in this country. At the present time the increase in emphysema is faster, the increase in new cases is greater than the increase in incidence of cancer of the lung in this country.

Furthermore, the combined incidence of emphysema and chronic bronchitis as a cause of death in this country is j ust barely under cancer of the lung now as cause of death nationally. It is rising more rapidly than cancer of the lung is. So that is a problem as far as the death rate is concerned also. As far as disability is concerned, the people with emphysema stay sick for a long time. They have many years of a miserable life when they are very severely disabled. In fact, right now the second most common cause of all pensions given by tlie Social Security Administration for total d isability is for pulmonary emphysema. The most common cause of pension is hear t disease anti blood disease such as strokes. 1 think the importance of the chronic lung disease will be continually increasing especially with the population getting older as it is.

I was amazed to learn of all the people who ever reached the age of 65 in the history of the world, it has been estimated one-fourth of those people are now alive on the face of the earth. This shift toward an aging population is so dramatic. So any disease th at accumulates through time, any chronic illness that requires a long period to develop like chronic lung diseases can be expected to increase.

If there is a connection between emphysema and air pollution, and there is a great deal of evidence there is, this is particularly important to an aging population. What we have tried to do is to find out how to set about a research program to try to learn how much emphysema and bronchitis there is in the population in Alabama and to try to find ou t whether the symptoms and signs of these diseases have any correlation with the atmosphere, with ai r pollution, but also with the humidity in the air, with the tempera ture, with the person’s occupation, the number of colds a person gets, his smoking history, and many other factors tha t might contribute to the development of chronic lung disease.

The way we have set out to try to answer the difficult questions, and the answers are not known now very well, although there is some evidence of some of these points , I might say evidence now suggests that perhaps as much as 10 percent of the male population above 45 has at least some evidence of pulmonary emphysema or chronic bronchitis in this country. In England these are the commonest causes of death in this whole country. In this country not that common, but it is still a pre tty big problem. So what we have done is to develop a piece of apparatus, a machine in which a person can breathe.

This appara tus electronically records certain features of the way the person can blow into the machine and from the records taken it is possible to get a good deal of information about whether the person might or might not have some derangement in his breathing power, and consequently would imply the possibility of bronchitis or emphysema or some other lung disease.

AIR POLLUTION 63

The thing we have developed looks like a sensitive indicator for lung disease. Recently in a test we took 112 people of whom 57 were normal individuals who we knew were healthy and the other 53 were individuals with various degrees of lung trouble. Looking at the records we took on this group we found we missed only three times correctly guessing from the record, from the l ittle test, itself, without knowing anything about the patient at all, from the test of the 112 people in all but we guessed whether they had any lung disease or whether they did not. This was significant because the same sick people were also tested by the conventional available hospital tests and those tests were only able to identify half of these sick people. So the system we have is a sensitive one. This has been installed into a bus. On the same bus is an X-ray machine which takes the chest X-ray and we have technicians trained in administering a questionnaire about health symptoms. With this bus, which we have already in the Birmingham area, and are now ready to go out into the many communities of Alabama, tested the people to see if we can pick up by means of questioning, the X-ray or this test, evidence of lung disease.

Now, in order to try to relate this to the problem of this meeting today, air pollution, which, as I say, is one of the possible contributing factors in the development of lung disease, to relate this we have sought the advice and counsel of the Air Pollution Division of the Public Health Service from which you have already heard testimony this morning. As a result of these consultations we have hit upon a plan and also our own ideas of get ting the cooperation of a t least 10 or 12 cities in Alabama, cities tha t differ widely in the environment in terms of industry, possible air pollution, occupation, rural versus city areas, and so forth. In these areas we intend to examine 300 carefully randomly selected families in those communities, and obtain a great deal of information about these people, their health and also about their occupational and environmental factors tha t might possibly contribu te to lung disease. Then we hope to be able to examine the records we obtain this wav, and possibly draw some conclusions concerning the frequency of the lung diseases, any possible correlations between the factors I have mentioned, weather factors, air pollution factors, smoking, occupation, age, race, other factors, with the presence of lung disease to give some direction and meaning where we now have only confusion about the possible cause and the evolution of these serious lung diseases.

Now, I would like to mention also tha t in our project we have to work in the medical school, in the laboratory, to try to understand the meaning of what we get in the field. This is a two-pronged study with laboratory effort here in the university, and also a field project which I have ju st been describing to you.

Now I would like to mention our past sources of support and what our future problems are in this project.

This project was begun by a small g rant from the Public Health Service, from the Hear t Insti tute. The purpose of t hat g rant was to help us a t the University of Alabama to trv to develop some study of methods so that various places around the country can do studies like this and can compare their results and have meaningful comparisons. Since there are so many possible tests one can do, we have to have uniform tests in order to provide any sort of national comparisons and also specifically to provide comparisons with England where

64 AIR POLLUTION

the stud ies have gone on so frequent ly in the pa st on the bro nch itis problem.

Now, this was a very sho rt- term gran t and it was spent ab ou t 3 yea rs ago and it r esu lted in some pre lim ina ry comparison of me thods. Following this , the Jefferson Co unty Tuberculo sis Associat ion took ove r this pro jec t. Since th at time our supp ort has been solely from the Un ive rsi ty of Ala bam a, from the Jefferson Co un ty and the Tubercu losis Associatio n, from the Na tio na l Tubercu losis Associa tion , which app rox imate ly ma tched the Jefferson Co un ty fund, and also by those agents from the county tuberculosis associat ions all ove r the State of Alabam a, the y sen t in the ir funds to pa rti cip ate in the research program . Thi s was presen ted to the counties as a rese arch pro jec t, no t an y kind ot service where we would deliver an yth ing bac k to the coun ty exce pt knowledge ab ou t these diseases. And the ac tua l ope rat ion of this field s tudy is under the direct ad minist ration of Jefferson Co un ty and the State of Ala bam a antitu bercu los is associations, and in fac t the bus we used is one of the ve ry ear ly X- ray survey buses th at has had yea rs of service try ing to de tec t tube rculosis and cancer of the lung.

Now, we look forw ard most eager ly to ward su pp ort which we hope we will be able to rece ive from the Air Pol lut ion Divi sion because of our no t oidy financial bu t technical aid that we need. Le t me illus tra te the k ind of a ssis tanc e th at we need for our pro jec t. In the f irst place, the da ta which we ga the r mu st be com parable to othe r areas in the cou ntry. Tf, for example, we find a cer tain per cen tage of peop le th at live in rur al Ala bam a do h ave t his lu ng condition and they a re br ea th ing this cer tain kind of air, and if we lea rn in Los Angeles cer tain people the re hav e cer tain lung diseases, and the y brea the cer tain kind s of air, for thi s to hav e any meaning in terms of adv ising our whole co un try in how to proce ed in era dic ating thes e diseases and pro tec ting the public, we hav e to hav e da ta th at can be com pared. The people in Alabam a hav e to know th at the ir test tes ts the same thing our tes t does. They have to know when they tes t the atm ospheric pollution th at the ir metho d is the same as ours. Fu rthe rmore , they mus t even know our que stio ning abou t sym pto ms is the same way the y question abou t sym ptoms. In ord er to tr y to get un ifo rmity in our ques tion ing app roach, I wro te Dr . Prindle, who sent me the ques tion s th at were used in a s tudy in Seward and in Florence . I thi nk he has alread y allud ed to this stu dy . We took their q ues tion s and lifted the m out bodi ly and used the m in our s tud y. Tho se questions were derived from the use of the que stio ns th at the Britis h used in the ir studies, also in Cali fornia.

So if we come up with a conclusion th at peop le cough more in Ala bam a or less than the y do in Cal ifor nia , we know th at we had asked the sam e question ab ou t cough, therefor e, we would have a meaningful comp arison.

An oth er example of ass istance we have received and need more of in the fu tur e is the m at te r of the sta tis tic al handlin g. Now, the calc ula tion s, the sta tis tic al work involve d in a proje ct like thi s is very com plicated . About a year from now, or a year and 6 mo nth s from now, we hope to hav e examined at least 7,000 individ uals in Alabam a. Tha t is, a t lea st 7,000 tes ted specif ically for this rese arch pro jec t. We are also, of course, tes tin g the general public and tu rning the inform ation back to the pa tie nt s’ physicians for the use of those

AIR POLLUTION 65

physicians and use of these people jus t as you do on an X-ray test for TB. But tha t is not the main concern of this meeting this morning.

But the statistical handling of a project like this is really a very large job. The calculations could take literally months without the use of the modern electronic data processing systems and the Air Pollution Division has already used its own computers in solving questions similar to these questions I am raising in other studies elsewhere in the country. We are trying to set out our project so tha t our da ta can be fed directly in to the ir same instruments and come up with comparisons which will be of not oidy local benefit, but perhaps national and interna tional benefit.

We also need and have received very significant advice about the setting up of this whole projec t so the da ta can be of greatest national use. The Biometric Division of the Public Health Service has advised us at considerable length about the principles of setting up our program so tha t we will not make statist ical traps which later might make our data of l ittle value.

Now, another area in which we need assistance is this. We believe tha t our developments here at the University in cooperation with the TB Association, this bus with its lung testing systems on it, we believe this to be a very sensitive way to look for evidence of early disease in the population but we just don’t know anything about air sampling. 1 am not an engineer and I am not really familiar with what questions I should even ask about air pollution. Yet I know that a study of this type would be really a tragedy to get the information we are going to get and not know what these people have been breathing. So we have gone to Dr. Prindle’s group for assistance in tha t direction. We hope and expect they will come up with suggestions and with assistance in terms of engineering help, appara tus, whatever they feel would best make the study really informative from the direction of air pollution.

Now, I might mention in addition to these problems of where we need assistance in terms of engineering assistance and data handling assistance, assistance for planning and tha t stage, and the importance of getting good correlations of our data with other areas of the country, in setting up projects where that can be done, one other way we need assistance is this, not necessarily Federal, but assistance in general, is the university, to embark on a program like this, needs to know that it has a high probability if it does a good job and does the work it is trying to do, it has to feel pretty confident th at it can have some kind of continuing support because the value of a study like ours will be so much greater if we can examine the same individuals a t yearly intervals to observe the possible development of disease in these people.

We are dealing with a disease tha t probably occurs in 10 percent of the people, in males above 45. So in a long-term study like this a study like this cannot be carried out effectively on a short-term basis in which you don’t have clear long-range direction. I would like to conclude by mentioning again that this project has been developed specifically and primarily by the support of the people who buy Christmas seals as a research effort here in Alabama and it was presented to the public tha t way. I am proud and gratified by the public response on tha t basis. When we did our first field testing on this we did it on a windy, cold, miserable day, ye t people lined up to cooperate with this when they knew they were not getting anything out of it at

66 AIR POLLUTION

all. Bu t, of course, the program now has expanded to where it has the possibi lity of con trib uting , I believe sign ificantly, to the gene ral health pic tur e of the cou ntry. We cer tainly hope it will.

Mr . R oberts. Th an k you, Docto r. The Chair has heard hundred s of witnesses before this sub com mit tee . I th ink this is one of the most int ere sting sta temen ts it has been my pleasure to have presen ted .

I first learned of your w ork when I read an arti cle by M r. Tow nsend in the Birmin gha m News. I would like to know how you g ot s ta rte d. W ha t was your insp ira tion for thi s typ e of mac hine and how y ou first st ar ted your research work t hat deve loped?

Dr . Branscomb . My own pos ition here at the un ive rsi ty is the hea d of the lung disease divis ion, bu t my tra ini ng has inclu ded conside rable tim e with Dr. George Wright up in Sar ana c Lak e, N.Y. , and in the Tr ud eau La bo rat ory where the ma in job was tes tin g peo ple ’s lungs, and the n aft er I had my residence tra ini ng at Va nderb ilt, I went to the N IH and worked the re in the Hea rt In st itut e and again set up a labo ra tory to try to lea rn wh at we could ab ou t measu ring prec isely w ha t goes on when people b reath. This pu t me in a posit ion so th at my i nteres t imm ediate ly d rif ted tow ard t he de tec tion, ear ly, of lung disease. Mo st of the lung tes ts th at had been developed before tended to be of g reater value in examin ing fair ly seve rely ill pa tie nts, bu t no t too useful in terms of tes tin g for ear ly lung disease.

Then Dr. Frye and others at the NIH , in Wa shington, developed most of the concep ts upon which our stud y has subsequently been based. Based on these, we we nt ahe ad to tr y to work ou t some device for de tec tin g lung disease on an ear ly basis.

Mr. R oberts . Is simi lar work in thi s field being done in othe r Sta tes?

Dr. Branscomb. Yes, sir, it is. There are seve ral proje cts aro und the cou ntry. These pro jec ts are no t the same nor should they be, because the int ere sts of the inv est iga tor s and the problems of the com munities differ. In some area s, for exam ple, the emphasis has been on, say , ge ttin g very tho rou gh hospita l exa min atio ns on a small numb er of people . In oth er are as the emp has is has been prima rily on very simple tes ts, bu t on more peop le than we ten d to exam ine.

Tn Los Angeles the emphasi s has been very heavily oriented to the possibi lity of automobi le exhaust fume injury. How ever, mo st of these pro jec ts th at have be en going on, the people conce rned have ha d a chance to get tog ether at var ious meetin gs and to exchange ideas . I hope the y will exchange the ir concep ts of metho ds in such a way th at the com parat ive s tud ies wi ll be of grea tes t value .

There is no stu dy going on jus t like ours and so far I do n’t believe the re is a stu dy going on using our me tho d of tes ting lung fun ctio n.

Mr. R obe rts . You spoke of the firs t m one y th at you h ad, I believe, coming from the heart re search work. Was tha t in t he form of Federal funds?

Dr. Branscomb. Yes, sir. Th e Hea rt In st itut e gran ted some money for the purpo se of try ing to stu dy possib le differences b etween lung conditions in Engla nd and in thi s co un try because they felt th at perha ps if y ou knew these differences the re migh t be some good clues ab ou t the origin and con sequen tly pre vention of thes e lung diseases. Tho se fun ds were spe nt by several differen t labora tor ies , each one try ing to lea rn, each one cha rged with a differen t specific mission. My mission was to com pare pre sentl y exis ting lung tes ting ap pa ra tus

AIR POLLUTION 67

to see which one wou ld w ork best. We got abou t six or seven di fferent devices th at had been suggested by var ious research workers to test the lungs. We pu t them all on the Jef ferson Co un ty TB Associatio n’s bus. We ran g them in as a helper on thi s effort . Th ey lined up for us a number of people who would go in the bus and brea the on these dif ferent pieces of ap pa ratus. We ha d the sam e peop le brea thing on six diff erent machines so we could com pare to see which one looked best.

Mr . R oberts. How long does it tak e you to exam ine a pa tie nt with thi s machine?

Dr. B ranscomb. About min utes .Mr. R oberts. You can test with your ap pa ratus abou t six at a

time?Dr. B ranscomb. Takin g them one at a time, b ut you ha ve a produc

tion line because you hav e yo ur technicians giving the X- ray and adm inis teri ng the quest ionnai re at the sam e time . We hav e ac tua lly run , I th ink , abou t 20 0 people in a day , bu t I th ink to do the job we need to do we pr obably run 10 0 people through a da y.

Mr. R oberts . You would say this aids in the ear ly detect ion of lung disease?

Dr. Branscomb . We certa inly th ink it ma y, bu t this has not been establ ished yet. We hope our researc h will establ ish wheth er it does or does no t lead to det ect ion of lung disease early . I might say so far in our pre lim inary experim ents we find th at asking questions of people can de tec t lu ng disease w ith am azin g fre quency . We exam ined one grou p of people here in a local corporat ion and found six people who were coug hing up blood, ju st from asking the que stio ns, and the y h ad not done any thi ng abo ut it. Of course, th at is a very ser ious sym ptom. It led us to believe th at perha ps pub lic edu cat ion was a lit tle deficient.

Mr . R oberts . How expensive was this machine to construct?Dr . B ranscomb. Le t me emphasize, Mr. Ro berts , th is machine

now is a research device which would pro bably have lit tle use out of the hands of some inv est iga tor s who were person ally very much concerned ab ou t i ts use and fam ilia r w ith it , and wante d to use it. I t has no t progres sed whe re it would have any possible general app lica tion exce pt in the hands of inv est iga tor s. I t would cos t ab ou t $2,5 00 , I would say , to make one of these mac hines, which is a lot less than an X- ray machine th at has proven so valuab le.

Mr . R obe rts . H ow do we com pare in the south ern region with othe r sect ions of the c ou ntr y in the incidence of t ube rcu los is and oth er lung disease?

Dr . Branscomb . I do n’t know how we com pare with reg ard to the incidence of tub erculosis tho ugh I know in Alaba ma the incidence rem ains high and for thi s reas on the TB Associa tion has been very care ful to make sure the public has understood th at thi s research effor t in no way su bt racted from, in fac t enhanced its pre sen t TB effort s. You see, our X-ra y will stil l pick up TB on thi s bus like it always did.

Mr. R obe rts . With X- ray ?Dr. B ranscomb. With X -ra y, yes, sir, bu t TB is st ill a very serious

problem tho ugh it is p rogressively coming unde r con trol in the Sou th. Other l ung diseases you asked aboul, I do n’t kno w the answer to th at . Maybe the p rojec t will tell us.

68 AIR POLLUTION

Mr. R oberts . In the field you mentio ned of emphysem a how do we compare?

Dr. Branscomb. Nob ody knows the answ er to this, I don’t think .Mr. R ober ts. Tha t is all I have.Mr. Schenck?Mr. Schenck . I have a lot of questions bu t I don’t wa nt to tak e

any more of the Do ctor ’s time.Mr. R oberts . Mr. Rhodes?Mr. R hodes. 1 feel th at Dr. Branscomb has made a very valuab le

con trib ution to this committ ee. His statem en t was very int ere sting and inform ative to me. I don’t know how Bir min gha m compares with oth er cities in figh ting the air pol lution menace, bu t I wa nt to say th at Birmin gham apparen tly has very sple ndid coopera tion . Repre sen tat ive s of the cham bers of comm erce have shown the inter es t of the business com munity and i ts prob lems , and also by bringing in oth er elem ents in the com munity . I th ink th at is a very good example.

I wa nt to commend the w itness t hat a ppe ared here rep resent ing the community .

Mr. R oberts. Th an k you.We have two rep resent atives from the Jefferson Co un ty Board of

Health, Dr. Sweeney and Dr. Deni son. Wou ld you like to appear together?

STATEMENTS OF DR. DONALD B. SWEENEY, CHAIRMAN, JEFFER SON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH, AND DR. GEORGE A. DENISON,HEALTH OFFICER

Dr. Swe eney . I am Dr. Donald B. Sweeney, I am a pra cticin g neurosu rgeon in th e a ssoc iate capacit y of su rge ry at the m edical school, and serve in the cap aci ty as cha irm an of the Jefferson Co un ty Board of He alth.

Dr. Denison is the county healt h officer, and tog eth er we hav e been working on thi s prob lem.

The Jeffe rson Co un ty Bo ard of He alt h is of the opin ion th at pollution of the atm osp here in the Jon es Valley are a of Metr opoli tan Birmin gha m, Ala., is of suffici ent con cen tra tion and persistence as to co ns titute a pub lic health problem affecting the general healt h of the are a and is responsible for the aggra vation of chronic lung disease , bro nch itis , sinusitis , emphysema, bro nch ial as thm a, and a llerg ic cond ition s which are often reliev ed sim ply b y leav ing the air p ollute d area.

Pol lut ion of the air is from var ied and mu ltip le sources and the effects are agg rav ate d by its acc um ula tion due to a mo untain-v alley top og rap hy w ith weak air dra inage.

Thi s mu ltip lic ity of pollut ion sources and general com mu nity responsibil ity has been recognized by the board of healt h and by the cha mb er of commerce. As rec en tly as las t Tuesd ay, an adv isory com mittee of the chamber of commerce to the b oard of healt h me t to hear Mr . Vernon G. Ma cKenz ie, chief, Air Pollu tion Control, U.S. Pub lic He al th Service , review air pollution prob lems at a nat ion al level. Mr . MacKenz ie pointed up need for local in itiat ive in efforts to lim it atm osp her ic pol lution. He ind ica ted th at the Public He alth Service was interested, bu t ha d lim ited mea ns in offering technical ass istance .

AIR POLLUTION 69In 1953 the U.S. Public Hea lth Service in itiated a netwo rk of 54

cities for the stud y of a tmosp her ic pol lut ion . The local health de pa rtme nt join ed thi s stu dy in Ja nu ar y 1957. In 1958 , at the req uest of Associate Ci ty Com miss ione r Waggo ner and the healt h officer, Dr. George A. Denison , the Public He al th Service made a spo t survey of the general conditions affecting air pol lution. The da ta acc um ula ted from these stu die s has rat ed Bir mingham as one of the ma jor metr opolita n are as with a serious air pol lut ion prob lem.

In pre sen ting the foregoing tes tim on y rel ative to air pol lution in the Birmin gha m area, the b oard of h ea lth is c ogn izant th at it pre sen ts to the congressio nal comm itte e a sit ua tio n which is common to a numb er of cities. Ea rly efforts for stud y and con trol requir e th at tech nical ass ista nce be deve loped ami ma de ava ilab le to local communiti es.

Th e quest ion of how the Federal Governm ent, throu gh the Pub lic He alth Serv ice, ma y be of mate ria l ass ista nce to St ate and local gover nm ent s is ev ide nt from our local sit ua tio n. The tech nical enginee ring ass ista nce is a scarce com mo dity which can ha rdly be developed locally and mus t come through some na tio na l resource. We would a lso look to the Public H ea lth Se rvice , Congres s p erm itt ing , for limited gra nts -in -aid, such as are cus tom ari ly pro vided in othe r fields of public he alt h to give finan cial aid in the in itiati on of a local program . Su pp or t of thi s kind would acc ele rate a con trol program wi tho ut min imizing legal responsibil ity of local gov ern me nt.

Mr . R obe rts . Th an k you, Dr. Sweeney.In your o pinion do you th ink th at the air p ollu tion pro gra m of the

Federal Go vernme nt shou ld be con tinued?Dr. Sweene y. Yes, sir, I th ink th at it shou ld be, and perha ps

expanded to help in giving com muniti es the tech nical advice th at has been made ava ilab le by t he research pro grams th at the Pub lic He alth Service has done in the pas t.

Mr. R oberts . Do you believe th at the collection and d issemination of inform atio n and the sup ply of tech nical services can best be done by the Fed era l Gover nment ?

Dr. Swe eney . We th ink th at it can be to help us find out exa ctly wh at our pro gra m is so th at we can prop ose the solu tion s. I th ink th at to stimu lat e int ere st in this program we must find out exa ctly wherein ou r problem lies.

Mr . R oberts . Is thi s the join t sta temen t, Dr. Den ison , or would you like to add to Dr. Sweeney ’s sta temen t.

Dr . D eniso n. N o, except to point ou t th at we have the typ e of com mittee with the cha mber of commerce which was desc ribed this mo rning as one th at is des irab le so far as it rep resent s bro ad commun ity int ere st. Fo r example, the planning comm issions are rep resen ted , as well as labor. We th ink th at with the ass ista nce th at the Public He alt h Service has alread y given us, and with citizen supp or t, th at we are now in a p osit ion to move tow ard the assum ption of m ore detai led info rmation and s tud y, which s tud ied a long with the chamb er of com merce committee, will eventu ally lead to some monitoring, some eliminat ion of our grosser pol lution, and eventua lly to the kind of regula tion and legis latio n wliich we need.

Mr. R obe rts . Th an k you, Doctor.Mr. Schenck?Mr. Sche nck . N o questions.

70 AIR POLLUTION

Mr. R oberts . Are there any questions?Th an k you, gen tlem en, very much.Now, do we hav e any public officials here , or citizens of Jefferson

Co un ty, who would like to make a sta temen t to the com mit tee? If so, we will be glad to give you the oppo rtu ni ty.

Gen tlem en, I have a sta temen t for the record and I will no t read it, a s ta temen t of Mr. Ed . C. Reid , executive dir ector of the Alabam a League of Municipa lities, both as dir ector of the Ala bam a League and as a member of the boa rd of d irecto rs of the American Munic ipa l League. With ou t objection, I would like to offer it for inclu sion in the record.

(The sta temen t refe rred to follows:)

Sta tem en t of E d E . R e id , E x ec u t iv e D ir e c t o r , A la ba ma L ea g u e o f M u n ic ip a l it ie s

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Ed E. Reid, executive director of the Alabama League of Municipalities, and a former member of the Executive Committee of the American Municipal Association. I appear before you in behalf of both organizations. Firs t, I wan t to thank the subcommittee for taking the time to come here to Alabama to discuss and consider our air pollution problems and to get the views of our people on air pollution control.

I think t ha t without question scientific research shows th at air po llution affects the public health . Invest igations conducted in ma ny areas—investigations which have been given a great deal of natio nal publ icity—indicate th at air pollution has something to do w ith heart disease, with lung cancer and othe r illnesses and also there is evidence showing it to be harmful to plant life, costing our farmers millions of dollars every year.

For a very long time it was generally assumed th at air pollution came chiefly from smoke, dust and chemical fumes. Th at was certainly the general feeling or belief here in the Birmingham distri ct. Various studies were made of the cost resulting from the supplementary washing and dry cleaning requi red because of smoke and also the cost of renewing paint and wallpaper and replacing merchandise on store shelves damaged by smoke. But more recen t and author ita tive studies show th at the problem is much more tha n jus t smoke, whether smoke from indus try, home furnaces or the burning of trash.

It has been found in southern California and other sections of the country that the automobile is the chief culprit and great efforts are now being made to do something to eliminate fumes thrown into the air by motor vehicles. One Government scient ist was quoted the othe r day as saying that it might even be necessary to go back to the electric automobile to bea t the smog problem.

The U.S. Public Health Service is doing a lot of impor tan t research in this field to find the answers we need at the local level to do something about air pollution . The PHS is doing work which the Nat ion’s cities do not have spare funds to use in this kind of undertaking. Therefore, I thin k the Federal air pollution research program should be continued—an d even expanded. The cost is jus t a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of other worthwhile health research programs underway. With air pollution affecting every section and every locality in the country, and millions of our people, I think this type of research is fully justified.

I mentioned at the beginning of this sta tem ent th at I testi fy both for the Alabama League of Municipali ties and the American Municipal Association. Let me say in that connection th at the League is composed of 271 of Alabama’s 300 town and city governments. The American Municipal Association is made up of 46 Sta te municipal leagues with a combined membership of 13,000 municipalities. We support the nationa l municipal policy of AMA on this subject of air pollution control. At this poin t I would like to set forth, as follows, in my sta tem ent for the benefit of your subcommittee the na tional policy of the American Municipal Association on this very imp ortant subject of air pollution control:

“Air pollution in our urb an areas involves the emission of a broad var iety of gases, fumes, and solids and is associa ted with many and diverse activ ities of our populat ion. These pol lutants resulting from our increasing indu strialization an d urbanization now pose a th reat to the heal th of our people.

“The full extent of the air pollu tion problem is unknown because enough measurements have not been made. It is e stimated th at 10,000 communities in

AIR POLLUTION 71the United States have air pollution problems. All of the Nation ’s 215 metropolitan areas are affected, and in all, three-fourths of our tot al population is subjected to continuous or int erm ittent air pollution.

“The acute letha l potentia l of a ir pollution has been demonst rated in Donora, Pa., where 20 persons died and half the popu lation were made ill. Other effects of a ir pollution range from irri tat ion of the eyes, nose and thr oa t to more subt le and long-range physiological changes contributing to chronic illness or prem ature death.

“Air pollution produces slums. Depreciation of land values alone due to air pollution has been estim ated at over $200 million annually and depreciated values of bu ildings is several times this amount.

“At the National Conference on Air Pollu tion in Washington in 1958, the cost of air pollution to every man, woman and child in the United States living in urban areas was estim ated to be $65. On this basis, air pollution is costing the Nation $7.5 billion annua lly.

“Brief s tudie s made thus far show th at the menace of a ir pollution is fa r more extensive than has been previously realized.

“We recognize th at control of air pollution is a basic responsibility of Sta te and local governments bu t the Federa l Government mus t play an impor tan t pa rt in the solution of this problem because of its national significance. The Federal Government has research resources available to it which the Sta te and communities lack. It would be uneconomical and wasteful if each jurisdiction .were to att em pt to und ertake such research. In addit ion, there is need for financial assistance from the Federa l Government to stimulat e the development of and improve regu latory control programs on Sta te and local government levels.

“There are numerous metropol itan areas which involve two or more State s, and air pollu tion is not a respec tor of pol itical lines of jurisdict ion. The exercise of Federal leadership to deal with such problems on a problem-area basis can provide the stimulat ion to recognize and solve the a ir pollution problem.

“The American Municipa l Association therefore urges the enac tment of a long- range Federal air pollution control program which would provide:

“ (1) Strengthened perm anent Federal air pollution control legislation which would enable the U.S. Public Hea lth Service to:

“ (a) Cooperate with other Federa l agencies, Sta te and local air pollution contro l agencies, and indus tries in the development of comprehensive air pollution control programs. Provide more vigorous leadership to secure needed attent ion , study and correction of ai r pollution problems by all levels of government, by business and industry , and by the general public.

“ (5) Prov ide techn ical and financial assistance to Sta te and local air pollution control agencies. Such Federal assistance is urgently needed to stim ulat e and aid in the conduct of more effective regu latory programs for air pollution control.

“ (c) Collect, evaluate , and disseminate basic da ta and othe r info rmation relat ing to the prevention and aba tem ent of a ir pollution .

“ (d) Provide enforcement assistance to be used when requested by any State, inters tate , intermunicipa l or local government air pollution contro l agency.

“ (e) Provide grants-in-aid to Sta te and local governmen t air pollution contro l agencies, and other public and private agencies and inst itut ions, and to individuals, for surveys and studie s and for research, training , and demonstration projects.

“ (/) Encourage cooperat ive act ivities between State and local governments, including the enactment of inters tate and intermunicipa l legislation where necessary.

“ (2) Realistic appropriation s are necessary to the success of an effective long-range air pollution program and must be comm ensurate with the magnitude of the problems. To th is end, the present limi tations on annu al a ppropria tions for the air pollution program should be removed.

“As the industry having prim ary responsibility for aba tem ent of contaminants emitted by motor vehicles, the motor vehicle manufac turing ind ust ry of the United States is requested and implored to report with all possible dispatch to the Natio n, the States, and its cities concerning:

“ (1) Its cons truct ive accomplishments to date in meeting this potenti al th reat to the public health.

“ (2) Planned futu re efforts to meet and avoid or minimize it, and the time scheduling of such efforts.

72 AIR POLLUTION

“ (3) As an immediate pract icable and specific act ion, the indust ry is urged to provide , on a voluntary basis, devices on all new cars to minimize pol luta nt emissions from crankcase v ent gases.

“The American Municipal Association lauds the program and recommendations of the National Conference on Air Pollution of 1958 and urges th at a second conference be held in 1962 or at as early a date as is pract icable in order to evaluate progress in air pollution control programs, nationally , since the first conference.”

Mr. Chairman, I also want to include with my sta tem ent the attach ed dra ft of a bill, prepared by the American Municipal Association, for your committe e’s consideration and study in connection with the problem of a ir pollution control.

In closing, let me again say how very much we apprecia te your coming to Alabama and the t ime you are devoting to collecting the viewpoin ts and expressions of local people on the very important subject you are study ing.

A B ILL To im prove the public hea lth by encouraging coopera tive activi ties on the p ar t of State and local governments for the preven tion and control of air po llution; to carry out and promote research into the causes and prevention of air pollut ion; to make grants- in-aid to Sta te and local governmen ts for improving and extending programs of the p reven tion and control of air pollution; and for other purposes .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Federal Air Pollution Control Assistance Act of 1962”.

DECLARATION OF POLICY „

Sec. 2. In recognition of the dangers from air pollution to the public heal th and welfare, injury to agricultura l crops and livestock, damage to and the deter ioration of property, and the hazards to air and ground tran spo rta tion, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize and preserve the primary responsibilit ies and rights of the States and local governments in preventing and controlling air pollution, to supp ort and aid research rela ting to the prevention and contro l of air pollution, and to provide Federa l technical assistance and services and financial aid to Sta te and local governments and to inters tate and interlocal agencies in connect ion with the prevention and control of ai r pollution. To this end, the Surgeon General of th e Public Hea lth Service shall admin ister this Act through the Public Hea lth Service and under the supervision and direction of the Secretary of Health, Education , and Welfare.

INTERSTATE COOPERATION

Sec. 3. (a) The Surgeon General shall encourage cooperat ive activi ties by the States and local governments for the prevention and control of air pollu tion; encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as pract icable in the light of varying conditions and needs, uniform Sta te and local laws rela ting to the prevention and contro l of ai r pollution; and encourage compacts between States for the prev ention and control of air pollution.

(b) The consent of Congress is hereby given to two or more States to negotia te and enter into agreements or compacts, no t in conflict with any law or tre aty of the United States, for (1) cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of ai r pollu tion and the enforcement of th eir respect ive laws relating thereto , and (2) the establ ishment of such agencies, jo int or otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements and compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obliga tory upon any Sta te a party thereto unless and until i t has been approved by the Congress.

RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION

Sec. 4. (a) The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Public Hea lth Service and encourage, cooperate with, and provide technica l services and financial assistance to o ther approp riate publ ic (whether Federal , State, inters tate, municipal or intermunicipal) autho rities , agencies, and inst itutions, private agencies and inst itutions, and individuals in the conduct of and promote the coordination of research, investigations, experim ents, train ing, demonstrations, surveys and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, preventio n and control of air pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the Surgeon General is authorized to—

(1) collect and make available, through publications and other appropriate means, the results of a nd othe r information as to research, investigations, surveys , studies and demonst rations relat ing to the prevention and control of air pollution, including appropria te recommendations in connection therewith.

AIR POLLUTION 73(2) make grants-in-a id to public or priv ate agencies and inst itutions, organizations and individuals for research, demonstration , survey and study projects and provide for the conduct of research, demonstra tions , surveys and studies by contrac t with public or private agencies and inst itut ions and individuals without regard to sec tions 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Sta tute s.(3) provide train ing for, and make grants-in-aid to public and priv ate inst itut ions for new or improved programs for train ing of, qualified technical and professiona l persons in the preventio n and control of ai r pollution.(4) make training gran ts to qualified indiv iduals a t the g radu ate level and to establ ish and maintain research fellowships in the Public Hea lth Service and at approved public and private educational inst itut ions and nonprofit research organizations , with such stipends and allowances, including travel ing and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to encourage and procure the assistance of the most promising research fellows.(b) The Surgeon General may conduct inves tigat ions and research and make surveys and studies concerning any specific problem of air pollution confronting any State, or local government air pollut ion control agency and make such recommendations as may be appropr iate for the prev ention or control of such pollution if requested to do so by such Sta te or local government a ir pollu tion control agency, or, if, in his judgment, such problem may affect or be of concern to communities in various parts of the nation or may affect any comm unity or communities in a Sta te o ther th an th at in which the ma tte r causing or cont ributing to the pol lution originated.

(c) The Surgeon General shall, in cooperation with other Federal, Sta te and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and disseminate basic da ta on chemical, physical, biological and other characteris tics of ai r qua lity and othe r inform ation insofar as such da ta or inform ation relate s to air pollu tion and the prevention and control thereof.

GRANTS FOR A IR PO LLU TIO N CONTROL PR OG RA MS

Sec. 5(a) From th e sums available for the purposes of this sect ion the Surgeon General shall make grants-in-a id to S tate, in tersta te, local and interlocal air pollution control agencies for approved projects for the formulation, development, improvement and extension of program s for the preventio n and contro l of air pollution in such amounts and upon such term s and conditions as the Surgeon General may determ ine.(b) Sums appropriated for such grants-in-a id shall remain available until expended.

M EA SU R ES ON PR O B LEM S O F A IR PO LLU TIO N

Sec. 6(a) Whenever the basis of repor ts, surveys or studies, he believes it appropriate or whenever requested by any Stat e, inters tate agency o r by any local or interlocal governmen t air pollution contro l agency, the Surgeon General may call a conference on any problem of air pollution which may affect or be of concern to various communities in various parts of the nat ion or which may affect any comm unity or communities in any Sta te other tha n the Sta te in which the matter causing or con tribu ting to the pollution origina tes.(b) Notifica tion of such conference shall be given to the Sta te or Sta tes and the inters tate , local or interlocal agencies concerned, and to such other persons as the Surgeon General may deem appropriate.(c) Following th is conference the Surgeon General shall prepa re and forward to all the air pollution contro l agencies atte nding the conference a summary of t he conference discussions including (1) the existence, exte nt, cause and effect of the air pollution on which the conference was held, (2) progress toward its aba tem ent and (3) recommendations for the aba tem ent of such air pollution.(d) If such remedia l action is not take n, or action reasonably calcu lated to secure a batement of such pollution is not taken within th e recommended time, the Surgeon General may call a public hearing on th e problem of such pollution. Any such hearing shall be conducted before a board composed of not less than five members, appo inted by the Secre tary of Heal th, Education , and Welfare who shall be re presenta tive of the public, industry which is affected or concerned with the problem, persons who are expe rt or have special knowledge of the ma tter, interested Federal agencies and interested Sta te or local government a ir pollution cont rol agencies.(e) Subjec t to regulations of the Surgeon General an opp ortu nity to be heard at such hearing shall be accorded to all interested persons.

74 AIR POLLUTION

(f) After consideration of the information presented at the hearing and such other information as is available to it, the board shall make a report and recommendations to the Surgeon General on such matter s as the existence, cause and effect of the air pollution on which the hearing was held, progress toward its aba tement, and othe r related matters. Such report and recomm endations, toge ther with the comments and recommendations, if any, of the Surgeon General with respect thereto, shall be made available to the community or communities, Government agencies, and indus tries concerned and, to the extent the Surgeon General deems appropr iate , to the public.

(g) The members of the board who are not officers and employees of the United State s, while att end ing meetings of the board shall be enti tled to receive compensation at a r ate to be fixed by the Secretary of Health , Educatio n, and Welfare b ut not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and while away from the ir homes or regular places of bus iness the y may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subs istence as authorized by law for persons in the G overnment service employed inte rmitte ntly.

(h) Such clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the duties of the board shall be provided by the Surgeon General.

CO OPERA TIO N BY FED ER A L A G E N C IE S

Sec. 7. It is hereby declared to be the int en t of Congress th at any Federa l departm ent or agency having juri sdict ion over any building, installat ion or othe r property shall, to the extent pract icable and consisten t with the interests of the United States and within any available appropriations, cooperate w ith the D epart ment of Heal th, Education," and Welfare and with any inters tate agency or any Sta te or local or interlocal government air pollution control agency in preventing or controlling the pollution of the air in any area insofar as the discharge of any matter from or by such prop erty may cause or cont ribu te to pollution of the air in such area.

ADM IN IS TRATIO N

Sec. 8. (a) The Surgeon General is author ized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry ou t his funct ions under th is Act. All regulations of the Surgeon General under this Act shall be subject to the approval of the Secreta ry of Health , Education, and Welfare. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or employee of the Public Hea lth Service such of his powers and duties under this Act, except the making of regulations, as he may deem necessary or expedient.

(b) The Secretary of H ealth, Educa tion, and Welfare, with the consen t of the head of any other agency of the United States , may utilize such officers a nd employees of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes of this Act.

(c) There are hereby authorized to be app ropriated to the Depar tment of Heal th, Education , and Welfare such sums as may be necessary to enable it to carry out it s functions under this Act.

D E F IN IT IO N S

Sec. 9. When used in this Act—(a) The term “S tate air pollution control agency” means the Sta te heal th

auth ority, except that in the case of any Sta te in which there is a single Sta te agency othe r tha n the Sta te health autho rity charged with the responsibility for enforcing Sta te laws relating to the ab atement of air pol lution, it means such othe r State agency.

(b) The term “in ters tate agency” means an agency of two or more States established by or pursuan t to an agreem ent or com pact approved by the Congress, or any othe r agency of two or more State s, having substan tial powers or duties pertaining to the control of air pollution .

(c) The term “local government air pollution control agency” means a city, county or o ther local government heal th author ity , except th at in the case of any city, county or othe r local government in which there is a single agency other tha n the health authority charged with responsibility for enforcing ordinances or laws re lating to the aba tement of ai r pollution, it means such other agency.

(d) The term “interlocal governmen t air pollution control agency” means an agency of two or more local governments created by or pur suant to Sta te law an d having subs tant ial powers or duties pertainin g to the control of ai r pollution.

(e) The term “S tate” means a Sta te or the Dis tric t of Columbia.

AIR POLLUTION 75O TH ER A U TH O R IT Y NOT A FFEC T ED

Sec. 10. Nothing conta ined in th is Act shall limit the authority of any dep artment or agency of the United States to conduct or make grants-in-a id or contrac ts for research and experiments relating to air pollution under the authority of any othe r law.

Sec. 11. This Act shall not be construed as superseding or limit ing the functions., under any othe r law, of the Surgeon General of the Public Heal th Service.

Sec. 12. The following sta tutes or par ts of sta tut es are hereby repealed : 69 Sta t. 322, Chapt. 360, as amended.

STATEMENT OF MRS. HUGH SPURLOCK, THIRD DISTRICT, FEDERATED WOMEN’S CLUBS

Mrs . Spurlock. I would like to explain t he presence of one wom an,I believe, at th is meeting. I am here in the in ter es t of the Ala bam a Federat ion of Wom en’s Club s. My pa rti cu lar job is con servat ion of ou r na tu ra l resources in the th ird di st ric t which, of course, invo lves all of Jefferso n Co un ty. Th e club wom en have ha d mee tings. We have heard from our he alt h de pa rtm en t. We have ke pt up wi th the prog ress of these hea ring s you have heard thi s morning. Fi rs t, on ou r program in the con servat ion of our resources is ou r pro tec tio n of our waters . The pollu tion of our wa ters, and second is pollu tion of ou r air. We do no t th ink one tak es any prece dent ove r the oth er. We are int ere ste d in good clean wa ter and good clean air. Th ey are ou r God-given resources. Th ey are no t ours to pol lute . I th ink we have heard the evidence thi s mornin g th at con ditions have reache d the po int whereby som eth ing h as to be done. I wa nt to com plim ent thi s com mit tee , and I am very app rec iat ive of p res en tin g myself here thi s mornin g because the clubw omen are defi nite ly int ere ste d in wh at you are doing. We are wa tch ing wh at you are doing , and we are keeping up with wh at y ou are doing. We wa nt y ou to know th at we stan d rea dy to work with you on thi s pro gram. We are pa rti cu larly appre cia tive of Dr . Bransco mb ’s rep or t and the repo rt th at has come here from Dr. Prindle. We are appre cia tive of the hea ring, and ju st rem ember th at we ca n’t live wi tho ut pu re wa ter and we cann ot live wi thou t pu re air. I t behooves us to do som eth ing ab ou t it.

Mr . R oberts . Th an k you , Mrs . Spurlock, I certa inl y appre cia te th at , I am del igh ted th at you made th at sta temen t.

Anyone else who would like to make a stat em en t to the sub com mi ttee?

STATEMENT OF K. W. GRIMLEY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ALABAMA TUBERCULOSIS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Grimley . M y nam e is Grimley, executive secre tar y of the Ala bam a Tubercu losi s Associat ion, which is a com pon ent pa rt of the Na tio na l T uberculosis Associa tion. I would like to call your att en tio n to the fac t th at about 2 mo nth s ago the Na tio na l Tubercu losi s Associat ion for the firs t tim e too k official act ion directed tow ard the Congress on a m at te r no t conc erned directly with tuberculosis per se . And to call your at tent io n to the fac t th a t the Na tio na l Tubercu losis Asso ciat ion did urge t ha t the $5 million in ceiling on annua l ap prop ria tions for the air pollu tion p rog ram be removed, and th a t the a utho ri ty for th is program be con tinued indefinit ely.

76 AIR POLLUTION

Mr. R oberts . Th an k you, Mr. Grimley. The com mit tee appre ciates your statem en t and the fine w ork you have been doing for a long , long tim e in th is field. We are very g ratefu l t o you.Mr. R oberts . Th e Chair would like to express his app rec iation to the citizens of Birmin gha m, Congressman Hu ddles ton , the cha mber of comm erce, to the Jef ferson C ounty Hea lth Depa rtm en t, D r. Ga llalee, and Dr. O’Brien and all others who helped us in hold ing wh at I th ink will be a very fine hearing , will be of grea t benefit to this com mit tee and its work in this im po rta nt field.We are gra teful for the op po rtu ni ty to be in Birmin gha m. I wa nt to express again m y sincere t hanks to th e members of the su bco mm itte e for coming f rom such long distances to be wi th us and th an k the m for the ir tak ing time ou t of a busy schedule to come here.If the re are no fu rth er sta tem en ts from the mem bers of the subcom mit tee or others , this will conc lude the hea ring, and the subcom mittee will sta nd adjourned .I would like to say this , th at if any of you would like to come to meet the gent lemen who are here, mem bers of the sub com mittee , I am sure they will be glad to know Birming ham people.(Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the hear ing was ad jou rne d subje ct to the

call of the Chair. )O

AIR PO LLU TIO N - Govinfo.gov

Documents